Slightly O.T. but Interesting Article on 24bit/192khz


I came across this at Linux Musicians, very thought provoking…Let the flames begin…

I think Erdie was being sarcastic :wink:

Comment on the article: I believe that there aren’t many people on this earth who are more superstitious than musicians.

16-bit has 5-10 dB of dynamic range as well.

What the article was talking about TRACKING with 24 is a good idea, because you can use conservative recording levels so you don’t hit red, and still have plenty of dynamic range left.


Yeah … very useful to create music with about 5-10 dB dynamic range and distribute this with 24bit. Actually, we don´t need the CD, we even don´t need digital technology. The music trash, which is currently delivered everywhere could easily be covert by analoge technologies. (Ofc, there are other reasons who make digital technology useful …)

Ah, sarcasm eludes me, particularly in writing, and often in real life.

Yeah, the self proclaimed “audiophiles” are the worst with their home stereos, and their $300, 36-inch RCA cables, etc…

I am on a few of those sites because I like cool home stereo gear, too, but I end up coming off like a troll because I don’t drink the “expensive cable cool-aid.” (and the other kinds of cool-aid that they drink)

It’s so weird to consider oneself reasonable, and have people look at me like I am a 3-headed alien, when I talk. This happens in other areas of life, too.


Erdie is not only sarcastic but seemingly opinionated as well…“The music trash, which is currently delivered everywhere” :smiley:

For the record Ricardus I think we’d agree on a lot, I buy my cabling at the local surplus store and avoid a lot of the component elitism as well…

Hmm, Mr. Neil Young’s recordings somehow got very popular when he was in his prime long ago. Despite the fact that tape and vinyl was the standard then. I like that sound, but probably because i was conditioned to. Boring songs, autotune, artists with tits and ass, but no real talent, compression and mp3 artifacts are much bigger problems in music industry in my opinion.

I think its great to be often reminded of this… now i think my 9652 may be a little (1 Adat I/O) excessive to my studio heh

Sometimes when i find myself thinking too much about sample rate and S/Mux crap i end up remembering that a 96Khz recording wont make a crappy amp sound better, but if i get a better amp, and a slightly better mic i actually might get a better recording at 44.1 Khz

But now a couple of questions… as i read the whole article, lets say i’m about to record a Single for a band that would likely end up doing also a video for that song, would it be WISE to record at 48Khz just to deliver a 16Bit @ 48Khz version to the client for their eventual video? or would it be just better to record on 44.1Khz and if asked for the video, do a new export @48Khz??

Does this sample rate change affect the final product at an audible level?

What i’ve done so far in some cases where i just record the output of an analog mixing console in a concert, is to master that audio and then export at 48Khz so the guy who is editing the video of the concert won’t have to re encode with a less reliable encoder or make a very lossy version of it, other times i give 48Khz versions a little bit more room in the K-14 meter as it is for video, and for 44.1Khz versions that are for just audio purposes i might compress a little more… what do you guys do in those situations? any advice?

This is a video with the characteristics above mentioned:

Edit: By the way… that was mastered using Mixbus 2, Invada Meter and Compressor and a couple of LinuxDSP plugins

I d say the less conversions the better it is.
in your case if the single is a cd, better go with 44.1 all the way and then convert one time for the vid. but nowadays you might sell more mp3 s and more people watch/buy the video than buying a cd ?

this is a good thread about all that stuff

@GMaq thanks for the article