Recorded 16 bit, can I mix in 24 bit?

4

4tracker

Guest
I'm remixing tapes that are twenty years old. They were done on DA-88 and ADAT machines, so I think they are 16 bit. When I import these into the DAW to remix, do I need to make my daw 16 bit rather than the default 24 bit? Usually it notifies me if there's a difference, and it didn't with these.

What problems arise if I keep it at 24 bit?

Also, one of the vocals had to be redone, and this was recorded 24 bit. So it's a mix of the two now.

Thanks
 
What DAW are you using? It probably runs at 32 or 64 bit floating point under the hood anyway. Bit rate isn't really even a question until you go to render the thing, and it will be nominally (or at least theoretically) better to render it to the higher bit rate. You're not going to get any dynamic range back, but you are less likely to lose any that way.
 
ashcat_lt said:
What DAW are you using? It probably runs at 32 or 64 bit floating point under the hood anyway. Bit rate isn't really even a question until you go to render the thing, and it will be nominally (or at least theoretically) better to render it to the higher bit rate. You're not going to get any dynamic range back, but you are less likely to lose any that way.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

32bit version of Cubase using 24 bit for the project (on a 64bit Windows OS).

So if I import these old 16 bit files into a 24 bit project, that is okay? I was thinking it might be the equivalent of blowing up a 400x400 photo to 600x600 where you get all that pixelation, but it doesn't work that way with audio?

What about the new vocal I did at 24 bits. Does that cause any problems being mixed in with all the other 16 bit files?
I can read about this on my own. I tried to, but wasn't sure what to google because I don't know what this process of mixing the bitrates is called.
 
Last edited:
You're fine. It's not exactly the same as the photo thing. Basically, the bit depth sets the noise floor and the damage has already been done by now. Sample rate is a bit more complicated, but you're not going to have any real issues doing what you're doing. The "24 bit project", I'd imagine, just means that any new tracks you record will be at 24 bit, and your hardware send (to your interface outputs) will also be 24 bit. Still no issue here.
 
ashcat_lt said:
You're fine. It's not exactly the same as the photo thing. Basically, the bit depth sets the noise floor and the damage has already been done by now. Sample rate is a bit more complicated, but you're not going to have any real issues doing what you're doing. The "24 bit project", I'd imagine, just means that any new tracks you record will be at 24 bit, and your hardware send (to your interface outputs) will also be 24 bit. Still no issue here.
Click to expand...

Thanks again. When you say the damage has been done by now, what do you mean exactly? That the original recording was 16 bit?

The sample rate is 44 on the originals, and that is what I am using in the DAW project, too.
 
You aren't going to lose the dither noise (if there is any from the DA88's), but you're fine. Really. At 16-bit, I'm sure you didn't even approach the noise floor.
 
"When you say the damage has been done by now"
Probably isn't any. 16 bits gives you a dynamic range of about 90dB, say 80dB for an older, or middling good system. You are very unlikely to record anything that quiet. Think of recording down the local pub? The band is B loud but when they stop the general hubbub means that you will never need better than about a 65dB DR. (We would have KILLED for 65dB with tape!) .

24 bits has a theoretical DR of 144dB and nothing gets or can get within 20dB or so of that so all 24bit tracks are effectively dithered by the system noise.

Sorry John. I see you have succinctly made me superfluous!
Dave.
 
bongoboy said:
Why are you running 32 bit Cubase on a 64 bit system? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I don't have any reason to upgrade it since it works fine. My understanding is the only real difference is RAM, and since I run smoothly @ 4gb (my system has 8gb) it's fine for what I do. Most of my stuff only has 4 to 10 tracks, and I don't like using a lot of plugins. A lot of times I'll record on 4-track and just import to mix. It's not super intensive. I don't have any pro aspirations.

Thanks for the answers, dudes. So I should be fine...if anyone can think of potential problems let me know.
 
You'll be fine with 16 bit in a 24 bit system.

If you think of a 24-bit system adding extra space below the quietest sound you can record in 16 bit then you won't be far wrong. (I understand that this is not literally how it works, but it's a useful analogy)
 
Jake_JW said:
You'll be fine with 16 bit in a 24 bit system.

If you think of a 24-bit system adding extra space below the quietest sound you can record in 16 bit then you won't be far wrong. (I understand that this is not literally how it works, but it's a useful analogy)
Click to expand...
For all practical purposes, that's exactly how it works. No matter how many bits you have, the highest possible level is 0dbfs, and it's divided down from there.

It's not like the picture thing because it's not actually getting bigger. If you up sample from 400x400 TP 600x600 and then zoom out so that it's the same size on your screen again, it'll look the same as it did before you upsampled. Except that I think bit depth is more like...well...bit depth in a picture. If you take a 16 color bmp, and convert it to a 24 color bmp, you won't see any difference at all.
 
Once something is recorded digitally, it is what it is. It will never be any better than what got recorded. Changing the bit depth won't change what has been recorded. The same 16 bits of information will just be stored in a 24 bit bucket, completely unchanged.
 
It's still worth doing though in theory - all changes to the sound (signal processing etc) will be rendered in 24 bit, so any processing you do would theoretically have more space.

In practical terms though, it's a bit of a moot point after tracking (where headroom and signal/noise ratio are important) - much of the processing will be attempting to reduce dynamic range (compression in particular). DAW's normally work in 24, 32 or 64 bit internally so exporting a 24 bit wav after mixing will do much the same job as changing file formats.
 
Farview said:
Once something is recorded digitally, it is what it is. It will never be any better than what got recorded. Changing the bit depth won't change what has been recorded. The same 16 bits of information will just be stored in a 24 bit bucket, completely unchanged.
Click to expand...


Oh I know it wouldn't be better. I was worried about the opposite, the mismatch making it worse/causing compatibility issues. But it sounds like that isn't the case.
 
Btyre2013 said:
nope I meant the actual files should be 24 bit, NOT 16 bit, that is what I meant by that.
Click to expand...

It won't make any difference because most of the mixing is nondestructive and never writes over the original file. Mixing it down to 24 bit makes sense, but changing the track files to.24.bit won't change anything.
 
Farview said:
It won't make any difference because most of the mixing is nondestructive and never writes over the original file. Mixing it down to 24 bit makes sense, but changing the track files to.24.bit won't change anything.
Click to expand...
Yep! Unless you bounce or freeze tracks along the way. That shouldnt overwrite the original file, but it will create a new file of its own. Reaper lets you write those files in floating point format so it's the same as the mix bus, though for most things you can get away with bouncing to 24 bit fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top