can great recordings be made using 16 bit?

[jimistone]

I have a Korg D-1600 and i have been using 16 bit (you can record 8 tracks simultasiously and use a total of 16 for your recording)

in the 24 bit mode you can record 4 tracks simutaiously and use a total of 8

i want to do a blues CD and the 16 bit sounds very good to me (im also using a C-1 condenser mic and a joe meek vc6q pre)

the question im asking is this....would it be better to record in 16 bit mode and use 16 tracks...or would it be better to record in 24 bit mode and use 8 tracks with some bouncing.

also, if im reading the manual right....you can't mixdown a 24 bit recording and burn a cd of it with the onboard cd writer....you can only do that with a 16 bit recorder (that really sucks)

what is the main drawback of recording in 16 bit....i have listened to 16 bit ADAT recordings along side 18 bit Adat recordings and can't see much sonic difference. (maybe i don't know what to litsen for)

i just don't want to get way into an album recorded in 16 bit and realalize that i screwed up

any input will be appreaciated
thanks guys
jimistone

[ad0lescnts]

i cant tell the difference.. and OF COURSE a great recording can be... arent cd's in 16 bit anyway??

T

[TexRoadkill]

Can you make great recordings with 16bits? Of course.

But why ask us? Do a song in 24bit and decide for yourself if the track reduction is worth the difference.

[Vurt]

I have a D1600 and can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit mode, but it's not enough to warrant concern over which to use, imo. If you even think you might need more than 8 tracks, go with 16 bit.

[SPINSTERWUN]

Yes, you can make great recordings in 16bit.

[Track Rat]

It wasn't too many years ago that any digital recordings that were made were all 16 bit (most on black face ADATs). Lots of great recordings.

[ZEKE SAYER]

yes you can. i record with a fostex vf-16 and it sounds great. and anyway think of all those old kiss,beatles,LED-ZEPPLAND,ect albums that where recorded in the late 60s and all trough the 70s. all of them where recorded on 4,8 and even 16 track reel-to-reels. and some of them recordings sound pretty good.

[darrin_h2000]

Sounds like a cool idea for a theme Park.


16 is fine , but IF you use the dvd burners 24 bit is better.

[Track Rat]

Originally posted by ZEKE SAYER
..... think of all those old kiss,beatles,LED-ZEPPLAND,ect albums that where recorded in the late 60s and all trough the 70s. all of them where recorded on 4,8 and even 16 track reel-to-reels. and some of them recordings sound pretty good.

[keilson]

Zeke, those were analog recordings. He said 16 bit, not 16 track.

[ZEKE SAYER]

i know,i know. you see what i meant by that was if people could make good music off of reel-to-reel then you know that 16-BIT is going to sound good. some people can't make s**t with a 16-bit. it just somthing that you have to work with.


in short.....yes......16-bit****IS*****good.

[monty]

That's all I'm gonna say.

[Kendog]

Check it out - we just had Eminem in for three days at the start of his tour. I asked his engineer, Steve, the very same question, because we record with blackface ADATs, then dump into Samplitude at 32-bit float for all processing. Steve told me that he ALWAYS tracks and mixes at 16/44.1.

Draw your own conclusions, but the end product doesn't lie. It sounds absolutely fabulous.

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com

[muskgrave]

Do I have a good voice?
Can I or my band play their instruments well?
Do I have good acoustics or something to emulate them?
Do I have good microphones/Equipment, or the creativity to make what I do have sound good?

I'm sure eminem sounds great..he's probably singing through a $50k microphone...Unless you have the above (okay a good voice isn't always necessary), the 24/16 bit question at the end of the line isn't going to help you...talent and creativity will shine through...yes..even at sub-cd quality....

dlv

[ad0lescnts]

what IS quality of a cd then??? heh........

T

[TexRoadkill]

Originally posted by Kendog
Check it out - we just had Eminem in for three days at the start of his tour. I asked his engineer, Steve, the very same question, because we record with blackface ADATs, then dump into Samplitude at 32-bit float for all processing. Steve told me that he ALWAYS tracks and mixes at 16/44.1.[/url]

No offense to you Ken but I wouldn't exactly put Eminem albums up as reference material. Apart from the vocals they are all keys and samples anyway so the higher bitrate wouldn't really benefit that style of production.

[littledog]

Originally posted by ZEKE SAYER
i know,i know. you see what i meant by that was if people could make good music off of reel-to-reel then you know that 16-BIT is going to sound good. some people can't make s**t with a 16-bit. it just somthing that you have to work with.


in short.....yes......16-bit****IS*****good.

While digital recording has it's advantages over analogue (e.g. S/N ratio, dynamic range, and editing ability), bit rate is not an advantage. Analogue tape has an INFINITE bit rate, by definition. So it's a little silly (to say nothing of contradictory) to say "if people could make good music with infinite bits, then you know 16-BIT is going to sound good."

(That's why you're getting so much eye-rolling around here...)

[participant]

(goin with the flow)

[Kendog]

>I'm sure eminem sounds great..he's probably singing through a >$50k microphone...

Actually, a $6000 Sony complete with heat sink!!


>No offense to you Ken but I wouldn't exactly put Eminem albums >up as reference material. Apart from the vocals they are all keys >and samples anyway so the higher bitrate wouldn't really >benefit that style of production.


I'll agree that it's not as important with his style, but it certainly does contribute. He uses a decent amount of real instruments, and his vocals do sound great.

Not arguing, mind you, I just think it's a little more important than you do.

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com

[Kendog]

>I'm sure eminem sounds great..he's probably singing through a >$50k microphone...

Actually, a $6000 Sony complete with heat sink!!


>No offense to you Ken but I wouldn't exactly put Eminem albums >up as reference material. Apart from the vocals they are all keys >and samples anyway so the higher bitrate wouldn't really >benefit that style of production.


I'll agree that it's not as important with his style, but it certainly does contribute. He uses a decent amount of real instruments, and his vocals do sound great.

Not arguing, mind you, I just think it's a little more important than you do.

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com

[TexRoadkill]

Originally posted by Kendog
>I'll agree that it's not as important with his style, but it certainly does contribute. He uses a decent amount of real instruments, and his vocals do sound great.

Not arguing, mind you, I just think it's a little more important than you do.[/url]

Then wouldn't he sound better at 24bit?

[Kendog]

Originally posted by TexRoadkill


Then wouldn't he sound better at 24bit?

Well, that's the whole debate, then, isn't it? According to about half of the recording community (and Steve King), "dumbing" the result down to 16-bit effectively eliminates any benefits of recording at 24, 32 or 1 billion.

I'm not arguing the proven fact that 24 (and 32) sound better than 16 during the process, and this is an absolute must if mixing for higher res DVDs and such, but the jury still hasn't completely made up its mind as to whether it makes a difference when eventually ending up at 16 for a CD.

I was just adding to the pot the observation that one engineer pretty high up in the chain told me that he ALWAYS stays at 16/44.1 - and not just on Eminem's stuff. He's recorded plenty of other material - including live instrument gospel music.

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com

[DougC]

Why not pull out a few of your commercially-produced store-bought CD's, listen to a song off each of them, and sort them into two piles: those originally recorded in 16-bit, and those originally recorded in 24...... -If you can't tell the difference by ear, then ....... it doesn't matter. Don't worry about it.
~
An improvement that isn't apparent in the end product hardly seems an improvment.

[ZEKE SAYER]

thanks littledog. plus some good tapes add warmth and good sounds. hell, alot of big studios use them to record,to get a nice tape warm sound and then they load it onto protools.

listen to paul mcCartney's new album, "driving rain"

go to www.paulmccartney.com

all of these songs where made with tape then loaded into logic software.


good luck

[littledog]

Originally posted by Kendog


Well, that's the whole debate, then, isn't it? According to about half of the recording community (and Steve King), "dumbing" the result down to 16-bit effectively eliminates any benefits of recording at 24, 32 or 1 billion.

Hi Ken!

We must be hanging out with different recording communities!

I personally hadn't heard anyone deny the benefits of recording and mixing at 24 bits and dithering down to 16 bit only at the mastering stage. Without getting into all the reasons now, (reasons that I find both overwhelming and compelling), it's my personal experience that the final results show better stereo imaging, smoother decays to silence, and better transient detail.

But my opinion hardly matters. The "proof" of the pudding, as far as I'm concerned, is to ask the mastering engineers what format they would prefer. In my experience, from Bob Ludwig on down, I have yet to meet a mastering engineer who would not emphatically prefer to receive the stereo mixes in 24 bit format, given a choice between the two and everything else being the same. If you've found mastering engineers who disagree, then we are definitely traveling in different circles!