Pro Audio Asylum

Re: Recording at high-resolution, dithering to Red Book Standards

128.48.10.72

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Pro Audio Asylum ]

marantzguy

(A)

In Reply to: Re: Recording at high-resolution, dithering to Red Book Standards posted by Bersani on May 11, 2006 at 22:51:14:

Hi, Anthony!
Much thanks for your very helpful analysis and suggestions!
In fact, I did edit and re-eq/normalize and added limiting to the recording in the 24/96 domain and then burned a Red Book copy for the client.
My understanding was that at certain high resolution (in this case, 24/96), there would be some sort of an advantage regarding possible headroom. I failed to also mention that the two-channel recording involved a pair of Milab microphones set in figure-of-eight pattern going through an Aphex 1100 with the mic lim circuit activated. Even so, it was necessary to tweak the eq a bit and then normalize before yielding a standard Red Book burn.
Thanks again!
Richard Links

Follow Ups:

Re: Recording at high-resolution, dithering to Red Book Standards - Inmate51 15:09:04 05/16/06 (0)
Marantzguy: "Even so, it was necessary to tweak the eq a bit and then normalize before yielding a standard Red Book burn."
Inmate: It doesn't matter what microphones you use. There is always some tonal adjustment to be made. Either the direct sound is off a little due to mic characteristics, or the reverberant sound adds too much unwanted color, or the mic doesn't have a good off-axis characteristic. There's always some reason to tweak it. Just don't let your speakers or headphones color your judgement. ;)
"Normalizing" is one of the most useful tools in the digital arsenal. Because of it, I can comfortably record at a reasonable level, and not worry about a heart attack if a big sfz comes along. Although it does raise the noise floor, it's not an issue for the vast majority of listeners.
Re: Recording at high-resolution, dithering to Red Book Standards - b.l.zeebub 07:58:03 05/14/06 (0)
As you rightly pointed out recording in 24bit gives you more headroom and you are less likely to trip your limiter, which is always a good thing.
It also gives you a couple of bits at the bottom where digital noise 'collects' and leaves you a clean 16bit 'window' for your signal...
As for sampling frequency I would use 88.2kHz since higher sample rates produce audibly better treble, even after conversion, and simply halving it requires substantially less number crunching when you eventually dither to 16/44.1.
This is just my opinion based on a little practical experience, so please don't nail me technicalities...
Re: Recording at high-resolution, dithering to Red Book Standards - Bersani 21:00:02 05/12/06 (0)
Richard,
One of the nice things about 24-bit recording is the freedom to be more conservative with recording levels while still maintaing better resolution than 16-bit's full potential (thereby providing greater headroom). I suppose when you combine that with normalization at the 24-bit level before downconverting to 16-bit, there would indeed an advantage... and since you ARE using digital EQ, sticking with 24-bit is a good idea.
Most of my recording is still done at 16-bit, and I run my levels hot enough that they reach 0dBFS for a few inaudible samples here and there. Obviously, normalizing is not an issue in my case, and with only 16 bits to work with, I don't usually mess around with EQ. Since it's a hobby for me, I can live with less than perfect spectral balance.

-Anthony

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.