24 bit - I am happy once again

[AllenLowe]

well, over the last 10 years or so, as I commented to a friend of mine recently, we have ironically worked hard in the digital domain to make it as good as analog was - as warm and with a similarly nice depth of field, sonically speaking. I used to do a lot of recording, and though I sold my old RCA 77s years ago, a new generation of cheap and easily upgrade-able Chines microphones has brough me back into the game. But what has made it particularly gratifying to record my own stuff again is the easy availablity of 24 bit recording. I recently bought an Edirol 4 track, did a little

a/b 'ing of 24/44 versus 24/96, and could not hear any difference, so settled happily into 24/44. A friend of mine is re-capping a couple of Marshal MXL V67 mics (total cost for the re-cap: $32 in parts; he's not charging me the labor), and all I can say after hearing the first one is YES - I'm also, I should add, using a ART MPA II solid state pre-amp, very clean and un-colored as a boost. So now I can stand in my living room and make recordings that truly sound as good as any studio I've set foot in - actually, a bit better, sometimes, because the acoustics are good and I don't have to hope the recording engineer does what I ask him to do just to find out later that he "knew better" and messed things up (with apologies to you engineers out there who don't engage in this sort of thing; this has, unfortunately, happened to me more than once).

And 4 tracks is enough to record my 4 piece group, one mic on each instrument in a circular setting, gives me a naturalk sonic spread but allows me mixing flexibility. Just like the old days, ahhhhhhh........

Edited February 16, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Tom in RI]

Allen, I see that some people who post live shows here and there are posting 16/44 and 24/96 versions. I don't really know what it all means. Do I have this right that 24/44 or 24/96 is not playable on a regular cd? As I understand it these higher resolution files would generally only be playable from your computer, do I have that right?

[AllenLowe]

yes, that's right - though they can be burned into a 16 bit CD or CDR from wave files - and in my experience, if the original has that warmth and clarity, and is burned at a reduced bit rate using decent conversion, it really holds much of the original quality.

I should also add that I have done comparisons between this kind of home 24 bit recording and old analog 8 tracks like Fostex and Tascam, and the 24 bit is clearly superior - so even on a consumer level, there is now the possibility of good digital recording.

Edited February 16, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Jim Alfredson]

I track everything at 24/44. There is really no need to use a higher sample rate especially since lower-level converters don't really sound that good at high sample rates anyway. Add to that the increased data throughput and storage you need plus the fact that your end product is going to be at 44.1kHz and I fail to see the point. However, using a higher bit rate certainly makes a huge difference.

Allen, here's some advice I learned by many mistakes and trial and error, that was later confirmed by multiple engineers over at the TapeOp forum: Don't track in 24bit like you would in analog and certainly not like you would in 16bit. That is, don't try to get as close to zero as you can on the meters. 24bit has such an enormous dynamic range (144db irrc) and those "extra" bits are all in the low level stuff. In other words, the resolution is much greater and you can capture really quiet sources without "quantization" and other nasty 16bit artifacts, so DO IT! You should be averaging around -12dbfs on your digital meters for your sources. The funny thing is, around -14dbfs or so is akin to about 0dbvu in the analog domain. 24bit has a lot more headroom (about 18db worth) but using all that headroom in the tracking stage makes the mixing stage a lot more difficult and makes your mixes sound one-dimensional. Use that headroom to your advantage and let the levels breathe.

And yes, modern converters, even "prosumer" level ones, are really good these days. I've tracked three albums using my lowly Presonus Firepods, including Groovadelphia, Greg Nagy's solo release (which is nominated for 7 Jammie Awards at tonight's award show and a national Blue Music Award for Best New Artist Debut in Memphis in May), and my solo disc In Memorandom. I mixed the latest organissimo CD, ALIVE & KICKIN' myself completely in the computer. The technology we have at our fingertips today is incredible.

If you like MXL stuff, you should check out their tube mic, the V69. Put a NOS American tube in there and you've got yourself an incredible mic for very little money.

[AllenLowe]

yes, excellent point - at these bit rates, the lower levels are optimal - I was also amazed at how simple it is to mod these mics for so little in parts - I'm lucky to have a friend do it for free, but even he said how easy it was. Now if I could only find a cheap source for Peluso capsules - I have a CAD mic that, with re-capping and a capsule swap, is said to approach Neumann territory. The other mic I'm using is a $50 MCA SP-1 which is waiting for a component swap - and THIS one is said to sound like a Schoeps once modded - we'll find out.

the converter thing is amazing, as you say - I'm using the Edirol converters, and this thing sounds good enough to issue.

[Jim Alfredson]

You might get a kick out of this:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/462141-oktavamod-rode-nt1a-vs-70s-u-87-a.html

http://www.oktavamod.com/

[Jim Alfredson]

And this: http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=53130&start=0