Is 44.1 Khz 24-bit Good For a Standard Music Session With This PC?

[rockguitarist1255]

Originally Posted by albee1952

only if you got a fat wallet. Re sample rate conversion; its gotten plenty good since the early days so I don't give it a second thought. If your final product is to be audio CD's, then you will end up at 44.1K and 16 bit, so make sure you use dither as the absolute last process(for going from 24 bit to 16 bit, having nothing to do with sample rate). If your final goal is DVD, then 48K makes even more sense

For my final project I will just be doing a standard audio cd. I'm just confused on if I want 44.1k or 48k now haha. 44.1k would be nice to make everything nice and simple, but you do make a very valid point with using 48k for audio, given that it gives the session better headroom or quality, (not sure if I worded it right)

Lol so as long as I get a good quality interface when I upgrade my current things, I can either use 44.1k or 48k, is what you're saying? Like both will work you yourself just prefer to use 48k? Just wanna make sure I have that right.

And @shtik,I understand what you were saying with recordings sounding bad. For example I use a standard SM57 for percussion most of the time, and in the future I plan on getting a nice ribbon mic like the Royer R121, even though it's expensive lol but it'll be worth it. But my point is, just say I have all that stuff in the future, and a good interface, I'm just wondering if there really is a noticeable difference between 44.1k and 48k, given both sessions are mixed down to 44.1k 16 bit. I feel like most of you say either or is fine, granted that I would have the proper equipment and not some pos no quality thing.

[Bob Olhsson]

If the recording has any success at all, it will become a video and the highest quality enviornment it will ever be played in will most likely be a video system. MP3s and AACs both sound better at 48 and 96k AACs sound incredible.

[Matt Hepworth]

44.1/24 is superior to what CLA mixes everything on. Either he doesn't know what he's doing, or we all care too much about things that matter too little.

Based on album sales, I suspect it's the latter. ;-)

[rockguitarist1255]

Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth

44.1/24 is superior to what CLA mixes everything on. Either he doesn't know what he's doing, or we all care too much about things that matter too little.

Based on album sales, I suspect it's the latter. ;-)

Lol with all the talk about how amazing he is, I'm curious, what exactly does CLA mix down to and what equipment does he do it with?

[Matt Hepworth]

He transfers all the glorious 24/96 tracks he receives to a Sony 16-bit Dash recorder. It supports 48k, but I understand he uses 44.1. If he only knew. ;-)

[groundcontrol]

Are you sure he's not using the 3348 HD?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by rockguitarist1255

I've heard some people say that if you're bouncing down to that, you should use 44.1k or 88.2 for the session because it has something to do with the math of bouncing down.

They are wrong.

[rockguitarist1255]

So based on what I've seen a lot of you say on here and on the Pro Tools Expert website, I think I will just stick to 44.1/24. Although if I do have a computer with enough power, would it really be worth it recording at 96/24, saying I'm using the same equipment as the 44.1/24 recording I mean?

[Matt Hepworth]

Originally Posted by groundcontrol

Are you sure he's not using the 3348 HD?

His brother uses the HD. CLA uses the trusty old 16-bit version.

[Matt Hepworth]

Originally Posted by JFreak

They are wrong.

+1

For more info read on synchronous versus asynchronous SRC.

However, I do recommend 88.2 over 96 because 88.2 is lower.