Audio differences in VST , SX , CAKEWALK ETC

[bluesplayer]

I heard rumours that when recording audio on VST , the quality is not as good as on SX . Now i always record on 44.1 , and not 48 , but even at 48 the difference is not that obvious . If audio is in digital format surley its gotta be the same quality no whatever platform you record on .Is there an audio quality difference in Cakewalk , Adobe Audition , SX , VST etc

[GNLidiard]

Well you're mixing a few issues with your question there. Bit depth and sample frequency are two different issues entirely.

There's an awful lot of detail that one could debate on the subject, but rather than dive in to the science, I'll offer a couple of simple thoughts:

CD is recorded at 44.1KHz. If you aim any of your work for a CD to be played on a domestic player, it would be best to stick to that sample rate. Anything else would use sample rate conversion - which is not something one would choose to do, as fidelity suffers. Same goes for anything soundblaster - they use sample rate convertors everywhere and the quality drops.

With bit depth, use the highest your equipment will do for as long as possible. CD is recorded at 16 bit depth and that's the ultimate target usually, but the effects of mixing and so on give benefits by staying as high as possible until you "dither down" at mastering.

As for which sequencer they sound better in; well, if the instruments are played straight, without effects and at full mixer gain, I doubt there would be any difference at all - digits and all that. Of course, different mixer algorithms and effects may make a subtle difference, but I doubt whether there's a big difference here either. I suspect the affects of weather and listener mood offer a larger delta than the sequencer's code!

Gary

[Goport]

Originally Posted by GNLidiard

Well you're mixing a few issues with your question there. Bit depth and sample frequency are two different issues entirely.

There's an awful lot of detail that one could debate on the subject, but rather than dive in to the science, I'll offer a couple of simple thoughts:

CD is recorded at 44.1KHz. If you aim any of your work for a CD to be played on a domestic player, it would be best to stick to that sample rate. Anything else would use sample rate conversion - which is not something one would choose to do, as fidelity suffers. Same goes for anything soundblaster - they use sample rate convertors everywhere and the quality drops.

this is true. and worse the soundblaster works best at 48kHz, this is its native frequency. Using 44.1kHz involves resampling and then the SB tries to convert on the fly. This results in a less than perfect digital image. Additionally the SB, even at 48 gives a nasty colour to the sound that I don't particularly care for in my experience. Basically, and for wont of a better explanation, it sounds tinned/compressed.

Originally Posted by GNLidiard

With bit depth, use the highest your equipment will do for as long as possible. CD is recorded at 16 bit depth and that's the ultimate target usually, but the effects of mixing and so on give benefits by staying as high as possible until you "dither down" at mastering.

I'll go along with that to some extent, but I also hike up the sample rate to 96kHz. This is probably just my idiotic way of looking at things but I believe the best way is to record at the highest bit/sample rate available. I know digital is not supposed to suffer on mixdown but .. well I just don't believe so

[stingx]

Tweakheadz.com has many articles that can explain this better than I can but in a nutshell, if you have the headroom, you should record at 24 bit. I notice the levels are almost pegged at 16 bit on a recording in Cubase, for instance, but at 24 there is so much more room before they sail into the red (clipping). Yes, you will ultimately mix down to 16 for cd but you should record at the highest bitrate your DAW can handle.

Read this, and devour the entire site over time as well:

http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

This site and homerecording.com should be viewed as your bible. Between the two sites there is everthing you need to know about home recording and what it takes to capture your instrument of choice as well as possible onto your medium of choice.

[Rythameen]

Originally Posted by stingx

Read this, and devour the entire site over time as well:

http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

This site and homerecording.com should be viewed as your bible. Between the two sites there is everthing you need to know about home recording and what it takes to capture your instrument of choice as well as possible onto your medium of choice.

Damn straight, great sites with a wealth of info.

[bluesplayer]

Thanks , great replies , TWEAKHEADZ is a superb site , certainly cleared up a lot of things , not sure at recording at 96 tho , my hard drives just aint big enough ! , anyway thanks for the link ! .

[Goport]

not to worry mate. I should have that sorted for you very soon

[stingx]

Originally Posted by bluesplayer

Thanks , great replies , TWEAKHEADZ is a superb site , certainly cleared up a lot of things , not sure at recording at 96 tho , my hard drives just aint big enough ! , anyway thanks for the link ! .

Try 24/44.1, I find that to be the sweet spot. Not much more room than recording at 16/44.1.

[bluesplayer]

http://www.musicxp.net/tuning_tips.php

If you only use your pc only for recording , you might find these tune up tips very handy . i went through the entire list ,i think i missed on a couple , but it has made a difference . Things open faster , and it did as it said , reduce mouse clicks and general noise . Be carefull when using Regedit guys , just go nice and steady .