Calling all masters of digital domain...

[James Argo]

Dither 16 bit to 24 bit before DSP.

Transmited communication signal captured from Green Clarion 3 of Galaxy Terra...

Neptune 8.74 calling Jaymz of the Earth... Comming Jaymz... I repeat... Neptune 8.74 calling Jaymz of the Earth... Comming Jaymz...

Roger, I copy. What shall I do for you, Neptune 8.74 ? Over...

Neptune 8.74 calling Jaymz of the Earth... Comming Jaymz... I repeat... Neptune 8.74 calling Jaymz of the Earth... Comming Jaymz...

I hear you clearly, Neptune 8.74, What shall I do for you ? Over...

Okay, Jaymz... We got some question for you. We hope you can re-transmit it to what's so called the best BBS on earth, Over...

You must mean Cakewalk forum on Dragon's Homerecording.com BBS, eh ? No problem, what it would be your question ? Over...

You got it right. Here's what it's all about... We have been told that 24 bit digital processing is alot much smoother and serving better precission to the result. Was that correct, Jaymz ? Over...

Yup, looks like you get the right information up there. That's corect. Go on, Neptune 8.74. Over...

Since we have recorded several tracks 16 bit 44KHz audio data with SONAR 2.2 XL. It's about the time to do the digital processing & mix them. Do you think it's better to dither them to 24 bit first place, and do the processing in 24 bit, or keep them 16 bit, and do the processing 16 bit ? Over...

Hmm... tough question. You may get vary point of view here... Can you give us more information that might help us figure it out for you ? Over...

Okay, Jaymz... We got several nice plugins we wanna apply to those tracks. Average number of plugins inserted on each track is 3 or 4. At the final, we want audio CD pre-mastered. Should we also convert them first place to 48KHz or 96KHz to gain better processing quality ? Please, Jaymz... our lives depend on it... Over...

Okay... I'll ask them... Over...

Thank you, Jaymz... and say hi to all cool kids down there on the BBS... We're leaving now, We'll be in touch soon... Over...

Transmition signal ended...

Hmmm... looks like I got a quest to do. Time to call all Masters of the digital domain led by The Almighty dachay2tnr...



Jaymz

[Pedullist]

Looks like James had 3 hours to spend on typing today.... LOL

[moskus]

James, YOU NEED HELP!


And if you've recorded in 16 bit, I don't think there's any gain by going up to 24 bit and then dither back to 16 bit. But I might be wrong...

[James Argo]

Jaymz opened a communication with Neptune 8.74...

Jaymz to Neptune 8.74, coming Neptune...

...sssshhhhh.... ssssshhh... (Sound of pink noises) Neptune 8.74 here... coming up, Jaymz... Over...

Can you transmit some kind of visual info of your routing ? Over...

No problem, Jaymz... like these... sssssshhhh.... ssssshhhhh....Curent setup for average each track...

16 bit 44KHz Wave --> Plugin 1 --> Plugin 2 --> Plugin 3 --> mix (16 bit 44KHz)

So all can be done in SONAR 2.2 XL . The question is, should we route this way...

16 bit 44KHz Wave --> Export to external wave editor which has better dithering algorithm, dither to 24 bit convert to 48 or 96 KHz --> Plugin 1 --> Plugin 2 --> Plugin 3 --> mix ( 24bit 48 or 96KHz)--> sent back to SONAR 2.2 XL.

We repeat the process until all plugins in tracks applied, so we have all track in 24 bit. Export final mix 24 bit wave, open in external editor again, dither the final result back to 16/44 for CD Audio compatible format and burn to CD...Over...

Thank you, Neptune 8.74... That's it for now... over...

Communication closed...

[moskus]

YOU NEED HELP!

And that's really a good question. I think there will be some benefits of doing it, but I would say it's not worth the time...

[dachay2tnr]

Master James -

Tell the Romulans that first of all you do not have to dither to go from 16 bits to 24. You only need to dither when reducing the bit rate. Adding extra bits does not require any dithering.

As for the original question, many audio programs do their internal processing at a 32 bit floating point, and then output that back to the original bit rate (I think Sonar does this, and I know Wavelab does). So this is a tough question. Is this a test?

Any answer I gave you would be a guess. I can think of some reasons why converting to 24 bits might be beneficial, and other reasons why it might not be.

Seems to me, though, it depends on how many steps of processing will occur. If all of the processing will be done in a single step, then I would say leave it at 16 bits. However, if there is multiple processing occuring, you might benefit by converting to 24 bits first.

For example, if you are doing some processing in Sonar, and then exporting a stereo file for finishing in say Wavelab or Sound Forge, I would think going to 24 bits would help.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[dachay2tnr]

Oh, BTW, don't touch the sample rate. If the end destination is CD, you should record at 44.1 and leave it that way.

[James Argo]

Neptune 8.74 to earth... We have monitored what's your so called the best BBS in your Galaxy. And looks like The Almighty dachay2tnr has proven it to us, Thank you for such very helpfull info you brought to us. We -what's you so called the Romulans- gratefully thank you and still open for any good advice & comments. May the good fate be with you all...

[Teacher]

why is 96khz taboo and 24 bit accepted as the gospel truth?

[dachay2tnr]

why is 96khz taboo and 24 bit accepted as the gospel truth?

I believe it is due to the fact that there is much more benefit from the extra bits in terms of noise floor, than there is from a higher sampling rate.

A 96K sampling rate will allow you to record frequencies up to 48KHz. Since humans can only hear to about 20KHz, there is not much benefit in the extra samples, and you can end up even worse since you now also have to go through a conversion to go from 96 to 44.1 to burn to a CD. Additioanlly, your other equipment (mics, preamps, etc.) are only normally designed for 20Khz as well. If I'm singing into a mic that can accurately capture 20Khz, what's the benefit of recording the signal at 96Khz?

On the other hand, a 16 bit rate gives you a higher noise floor than a 24 bit rate, and therefore you can get a much better signal to noise ratio with 24 bits. That is a major advantage, and worth the extra conversion to get back to 16 bits for CD burning.

I also think there are better algorithms available for converting bit rates than there are for converting sample rates.

[Teacher]

have you tried DSP uner 96khz...u may have a different opinion...also i remember Brad Blackwood saying with SRC algorithms that we have today it doesn't really degrade the sound...of course he means mastering S/W such as Wavelab etc..

[Strryder]

Originally posted by moskus
YOU NEED HELP!

I agree.... You really ought to get away from the computer every now and then.....

[James Argo]

...sssssshhhh.... ssssshhhhh.... (sound of pink noises...)

[maestro_dmc]

Originally posted by Pedullist
Looks like James had 3 hours to spend on typing today.... LOL

What kills me is that he can rip off a post like that in about 5 minutes!

Dang Lightning Fingers!


Definiately need some psychiatric evaluation though, and maybe an aluminum foil hat?

[moskus]

James, are you actually capable of writing a post that normal human beings can understand?

[Torpid-x]

Originally posted by maestro_dmc
and maybe an aluminum foil hat?

I'm the best aluminum foil bowl maker on earth, maybe I can whip up a hat for him.

phhhhhh the sound of a SBD fart

[James Argo]

Originally posted by maestro_dmc
...and maybe an aluminum foil hat?

XL Please...

Anyway, I made an experience today with stereo solo piano sound.
Copy the piano track into another track. So I have two exactly twin tracks.

The first track, I export to CoolEditPro2, save it to 24 bit. Then I applied Compressor,[color= blue]EQ[/color], and a bit Trueverb plugins from Waves 3.5 .
The second track, I exported to CoolEditPro2, NOT saving it to 24 bit (so it remains 16 bit) and applied same plugins.
All effect applied one by one. close CEP, and reload the audio file back to SONAR. My humble ears can hear the result somehow smoother on the first track. I can't say it's a better way, since it was just my simple quick experience Probably more masters outside will tell you I'm wrong... take it easy... NOW, why don't you all guys take a spare time to do the same thing ? Post here your comment, so those Romulans can monitor them...

[wfaraoni]

Its issues like this which make me appreciate my deafness LOL
It all sounds the same to me
Only my recordings will probably suck to others.


Anyways, Jaymz, I really enjoyed your posting. Thats entertainment!!! [COLOR=deeppink] pinknoise[COLOR=blue]

Peace
Bill

Hey how come those colors dont work for me?

[James Argo]

Hey how come those colors dont work for me?

For every [COLOR] tag you made, you have to close it with [/COLOR]

[wfaraoni]

thanks jaymz Thanks using the close tags x button Now I get it!

[moskus]

Whoho...

Now can we all write insane messages...

[Recording Engineer]

James,

If your tracks are 16-bit, 44.1k, you gain nothing by going to any higher bit-depth as you will simply be adding "zeros".

I highly doubt you'll gain anything by resampling to 96k... In fact, I'm pretty sure you will be degrading the quality by doing that!

What you need to do is simply mix the tracks and use any plug-ins you'd like... By using ANY processing, you will gain bits at EVERY processing stage, and FAR beyond whole numbers. Make certain that the program you use isn't setup to automatically truncate or dither the resulting 2-tracks.

Once you have the resulting 2-tracks, editing (anything other than cut and paste in editing is "processing" also) and mastering will be done. Again, ANY processing done at this stage, you will even further gain bits. Once you're absolutely sure you're finished, the last thing you do before sending it off for a glass master to be created or duplication, is dither to 16-bit. You can use a noise-shaping scheme to the reduce effects dithering.

Of course, if you're having it mastered (which I recommend), you don't worry about the dithering. Just make sure dithering or truncating is NOT happening automatically when you're mixing to 2-tracks.

[dachay2tnr]

RE - many software programs process at 32 bit float and dither back to the original bit rate after the material is processed. Something you have no control over.

You are correct that increasing the bit rate from 16 to 24 bits will do nothing but add zero's - initially. However, after the material has been processed, those zero's will become populated with actual numbers. As such, there very well could be a benefit.

I do agree with you that there is no benefit to changing the sample rate.

[crosstudio]

i second that emotion.

adding bits before doing processing is not a harm it is a good thing. SEKD Samplitude Master does the 24-bit to 32-bit thing.

i record in 48khz/24bit and samplitude master dithers to 44.1/16 when burning the CD (after all mastering is done). i realize that re-sampling from 48 to 44.1 is costing me a little something, but i believe that i'm losing less than what i'd lose by recording at 44.1

having said that,

i certainly wouldn't record in 44.1, mix in 48, then master to 44.1 again. too much re-sampling going on.

[Pedullist]

I love this quiz, Sonusman!

Can't wait until I get home to listen to these samples!