DJTT Blog Post on Bitrates

[Shishdisma]

How can you make a statement so patently false? I think your understanding of sample rate is flawed. You might be extrapolating that at 44.1 16bit it more than covers the range of human hearing from 20hz to 20khz but there is absolutely no doubt that sample rates higher than 44.1 are sampling at a higher rate and therefore more truly reproducing the original. You're essentially mixing down mulitiple tracks into a final 2 tracks. When distilling anything down you want to start with the most premium grade possible, that is, if you care about the quality of the finished product. If all you're doing is sampling loops of peoples tracks and mixing them together to make music, then I'd agree with your above statement but if you're making original music and recording sounds, you should start with the highest sample & bit rate available to you.

Just because the information is there, doesnt mean we can hear it, unless youre mastering on ribbon monitors, the difference between 44.1 and 96 are gone. The "quality" thats given by a 96khz rate simply cannot be reproduced by normal speakers, and thus the harmonics that bleed in cannot be heard on anything but ribbons, let alone the post-master recording. You can talk about "starting with the highest quality" all you want but you'd be better off inventing a dark matter recorder for all the good it'll do.

[oliosky]

Shitdisma just admit it. You got schooled.

[SirReal]

I'd be very curious to read where you've got your information from, or is this just personal opinion? Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue with you as it seems your mind is made up, I just don't want people who read this to take what you're saying as truth and would beg them to do their own research. I've certainly done mine and have 17 years experience in the audio industry and have run double blind audio tests for award winning mixers that refute your statements. I'm not into a territorial pissing match, I just want anybody who cares about the sonic quality of their own tracks to be aware.

[Shishdisma]

I'd be very curious to read where you've got your information from, or is this just personal opinion? Anyway, we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue with you as it seems your mind is made up, I just don't want people who read this to take what you're saying as truth and would beg them to do their own research. I've certainly done mine and have 17 years experience in the audio industry and have run double blind audio tests for award winning mixers that refute your statements. I'm not into a territorial pissing match, I just want anybody who cares about the sonic quality of their own tracks to be aware.

Im not really sure what "quality" you're even talking about. 44.1khz reproduces all audible frequencies. 96khz just holds inaudible frequencies, for the purposes of hearing their harmonics bleeding into the mix. Unless you have ribbon tweeters, or some other means of reproducing frequencies above 20khz, the extra frequencies sampled by a 96khz rate above a 44.1 rate cannot be physically reproduced, thus, no frequencies are actually lost.

[SirReal]

I'm not just talking about harmonics outside of human hearing, although there's been some tests that have proven they too can have an effect on how we perceive the audio. What about the harmonics of the lower frequencies that are still within the range of human hearing? Anyway, like I said, I'm not here to argue. You can believe what you want but I'd suggest looking/listening beyond whatever you read on the internet and applying your own personal experience to the subject. I did and my experience differs greatly from yours and the testing I've personally done and results I've read from audiophiles that I trust and respect does also.

[Shishdisma]

I'm not just talking about harmonics outside of human hearing, although there's been some tests that have proven they too can have an effect on how we perceive the audio. What about the harmonics of the lower frequencies that are still within the range of human hearing? Anyway, like I said, I'm not here to argue. You can believe what you want but I'd suggest looking/listening beyond whatever you read on the internet and applying your own personal experience to the subject. I did and my experience differs greatly from yours and the testing I've personally done and results I've read from audiophiles that I trust and respect does also.

I recognize that harmonics of inaudible frequencies can bleed into the audible spectrum, but unless you have monitors that can replicate those inaudible frequencies, the harmonics typically won't be generated at all. Note that I also gave concessions to recording of acoustic or analogue instruments with high end mics, as the harmonics will be present in the actual recording, and from there, in the raw audio, but for recording a soft synth or sampleware (the majority of electronic production), the internal sample rate of Ableton typically becomes a waste of drive space and processor power.

Also note that I'm not refuting the concept of oversampling for the purposes of aliasing, but thats more applicable to output, and somewhat limited by CDJ's 44.1khz output.

[hola amigos]

Another pointless thread.

[loverocket]

somewhat limited by CDJ's 44.1khz output.

haha! CDJ's suck !

[keithace]

haha! CDJ's suck !

okay...now you just need to stop...

[Tommi Bass]

Ripp Cd at 16 bit 44.100Hz (Cus thats what it is)

Ripp Vinyl at 24 Bit 48hz or higher and use a much better turntable than the Technics.

I used a Linn Sondek LP 12... and custom DAC.


Producing dance music (Electronic) 24 bit 48hz anything over this is overkill.

I'm a mastering engineer of quality dance music and the above is fine..... so long as it has no been limited or compressed on the final mix bus or dithered and must have at least -3db headroom if you send to mastering dudes like me.