16 or 24 bit?

tigerflystudio

tigerflystudio

New member
Hi all,
so, my DAW operates with both 16 & 24 bit. I usually record my guitars / bass etc. on my multitrack (16 bit only) then transfer them (via USB) over to the PC where I add those tracks to the 24-bit midi files I have created (synths / drums etc.). I usually convert the midi files to 24-bit WAV audio files, so I'm working with a combination of 16 & 24 bit WAV files when mixing.

So my noobie question/s?...

Q1) Is there any point transferring the midi files into 24-bit WAV's when ultimately the final mix-down will be in 16-bit audio (so it can be played on all CD players) anyways?

Q2) Should I actually be doing my final mix-downs in 24-bit, or won't they play on other people's CD players?

Q3) If I should be using 24-bit, is it about time I started recording my 'real' instruments (guitars / basses etc.) in 24-bit, too?

your help / advice MUCH appreciated
 
If you've got some free time on your hands, just do a Google search for "16 or 24 bit". But the general consensus is to go all 24-bit. It's a lot harder to cause audible clipping with 24-bit, which allows you to record at higher levels with less worry. But you should still set your levels moderately with 24-bit. It's just that you don't have to worry as much about the occasional really hot transient that could cause clipping (e.g. snare drum) like you do with 16-bit.

When you burn your CD, it will get dithered (converted) to 16-bit/44.1 kHz, but you should save that for the very last step. Keep everything 24-bit until then.
 
So if it all gets dithered to 16-bit at mixdown, why keep 24-bit before then?

I don't usually have any problems with audible clipping so is there any other bonus / reason for using 24-bit?
 
silentsky said:
If you've got some free time on your hands, just do a Google search for "16 or 24 bit". But the general consensus is to go all 24-bit. It's a lot harder to cause audible clipping with 24-bit, which allows you to record at higher levels with less worry. But you should still set your levels moderately with 24-bit. It's just that you don't have to worry as much about the occasional really hot transient that could cause clipping (e.g. snare drum) like you do with 16-bit.

When you burn your CD, it will get dithered (converted) to 16-bit/44.1 kHz, but you should save that for the very last step. Keep everything 24-bit until then.
Click to expand...

Not quite... its not that its 'more difficult to clip', its that 24-bit allows you to happily record at lower levels with more headroom without having to worry about loosing low-end detail due to the resolution of the conversion. More headroom = less likely to clip. This also does relate to the preamps, etc, as well as the converters. Its still 'just as easy to clip' as 16-bit if the input levels are the same.

The only benefit of 24-bit is increased dynamic range, and all other benefits stem from this.

So when might this apply to you?

Situation 1 might be a normal situation in mixing where you increase the level of a track, which you probably do all the time. Had you recorded a track at 24-bit, left its levels at unity and exported it to a 16-bit file, those bottom 8-bits would have been worthless... however, had you applied any gain to that track before dithering, some of the extra data from the 24-bit file will find its way into the 16-bit file that would not have been there had it been recorded in 16-bit. Similar situation if you are applying compression, etc. Probably explained that really badly, not in a coherent-writing mood at the moment :p

Another situation might be to do with the recording itself, kind of going back to what silentsky said about clipping. If you are recording a really dynamic source (often talking orchestral stuff here)... maybe timpani, which might be played as a really quiet rumbly roll then built up to loud hits... you want to leave lots of headroom so that you do not risk clipping on any of the loud hits, but at the same time you do not want to lose the quiet stuff off the bottom end of the converters. This is when the noise-floor and SNR of the analog front-end also really come in to play but, 24-bit also does help.


As for mixing, most DAWs operate with a 32-bit floating-point audio engine anyway (if not 64-bit with Sonar, etc) for a number of reasons. Now, floating-point audio, that is difficult to clip :p...
 
mattr said:
Not quite... its not that its 'more difficult to clip', its that 24-bit allows you to happily record at lower levels with more headroom without having to worry about loosing low-end detail due to the resolution of the conversion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 24-bit actually allows you to record lower, not hotter.:cool:
 
If you talk to pro's, it's pretty much unanimous that it's better to record and do everything in 24 bit right up to the end because you don't lose detail.

Even if the end product is 16-bit, I'd record 24-bit so I could hear it at it's best in my studio and what if everything's 24-bit a year from now and all my stuff is saved as 16-bit?

If you're computer can handle it, go highest everything as long as you can.
 
silentsky said:
When you burn your CD, it will get dithered (converted) to 16-bit/44.1 kHz, but you should save that for the very last step. Keep everything 24-bit until then.
Click to expand...

I don't think this happens automatically. If you're not getting it mastered, you
should apply dither on your master track before manually converting it to 16
bit. If you're getting it mastered, give it to him/her as 24 bit (they'll want it)
and allow them to take care of the conversion.

But yeah, bit conversion is a last step.

Also, I know the theory behind dither but I don't really get it :confused:
 
Ok. This is starting to make sense. So using 24-bit until final mixdown (which should ALWAYS be to 16-bit?) is better because 1) it allows better quality tracking at lower levels, 2) the final mixdown could / should sound more detailed than if everything was recorded in 16 bit, and 3) if the 'norm' becomes 24-bit, then the material is still current / valid.

So the good 'ol stuff like Motown / blues which was recorded all analog... what process has that been through to end up on our CD's? Have they transferred it to digital (in 24-bit?) then mixed down to 16-bit for mass CD release?
 
tigerflystudio said:
Ok. This is starting to make sense. So using 24-bit until final mixdown (which should ALWAYS be to 16-bit?) is better because...
Click to expand...
The final mix down should also be 24 bit. Mastering takes it to 16 bit.

And don't stress over the "why" of it all. The only reason to use 16 bit over 24 bit is if you have a bit of old equipment that can't do 24 bit. And if you do have old 16 bit stuff that you like and works well for you, don't kick it aside just because of a tech spec. Keep doing your 16 bit thing if you like it. Otherwise, go 24 bit without a second thought.

Numbers shouldn't get in the way of making music, so don't lose too much sleep over the whole thing.
So the good 'ol stuff like Motown / blues which was recorded all analog... what process has that been through to end up on our CD's? Have they transferred it to digital (in 24-bit?) then mixed down to 16-bit for mass CD release?
Click to expand...
It all depends on when it was transferred. Back in the 80's/90's it probably went straight from the analog mix tape to 16 bit. These days it probably goes from the analog mix tape to 24 bit 192 khz for archival purposes before getting a 16 bit master.


And just a bit of semantics: Your first post mentioned 24 bit MIDI.

Your synth may contain 24 bit samples. You may record the output of your synth as 24 bit digital audio. But the MIDI itself is not 24 bit. It is not even audio. I'm pretty sure MIDI uses 8-bit words since the values range from 0-255, but even then calling it 8-bit doesn't really make much sense either. It is just a list of instructions.

Kind of like how you can't have 24 bit sheet music.
 
Why worry about CD releases its a dying medium. For me its great... I love how new boxes of used CDs arrive at my music dealer on a more and more consistent basis, but the next generation of music lovers all have ipods and rarely even own a CD.

Red Book Audio is on the decline so record 24bit.
 
Zeppe said:
Why worry about CD releases its a dying medium. For me its great... I love how new boxes of used CDs arrive at my music dealer on a more and more consistent basis, but the next generation of music lovers all have ipods and rarely even own a CD.

Red Book Audio is on the decline so record 24bit.
Click to expand...
First of all, the final file format has no bearing on the recording and mixing process (mono Vs stereo Vs surround aside). Record and mix how you want. The mastering dude will put it in the right format.

Second, what you said makes no sense. Don't use 16 bit because MP3s have replaced CDs?
You do know that MP3s are "less" than CDs in every way, right?

Finally, I don't know what to call todays iPod junkies, but "music lover" doesn't seem to fit. I mean, many of them clearly love to listen to their music. But a "music lover" would surely find something that sounds better than a mp3 on an iPod for any real listening.
 
First off, yes, I was referring to the actual samples triggered by the midi score - they're 24-bit. But thanks for prompting me to clear that up. Might as well nip any confusion in the bud.

And as for CD vs MP3, I'm with CD's all the way, too! MP3's are geat when you're on the move, but at home, through a decent sound sytem, I can honestly say I have NEVER reached past the CD rack for the MP3 player.

And so, based on your advice and helpful info so far, I'm going to go with 24-bit all the way for my (currently under construction) album. So thanks again.

If I were sending a CD to an A&R guy, should it be 16 or 24-bit?
 
RAMI said:
All Cd's are 16bit.
Click to expand...
True, but highly compressed.Even Vinyl "analog" was highly compressed.
DVD supports higher resolutions with most at 24/48, some 24/96 and BluRay upto 24/192. The higher the resolution, the less the compression.
Tom Petty just released a box set on vinyl, CD, DVD and BluRay together, and for the BluRay he commented, this is the first time people at home can actually hear what they heard in the studio. I have not experienced that on BluRay, but I have some music DvD's at 24/96 and they blow CD sound out of the water.​
My Audio Interface (Tascam M-164UF returns at 24/96) to my monitors or playback in my home theatre ... you can tell :cool:

tigerflystudio said:
If I were sending a CD to an A&R guy, should it be 16 or 24-bit?
Click to expand...
Unless they asked you to send them something, you are wasting your time.
They will not listen to any unsolicited demos. Don't Call Us, We'll Call You ... that's what A&R is all about.
 
johnnymegabyte said:
True, but highly compressed.Even Vinyl "analog" was highly compressed.
DVD supports higher resolutions with most at 24/48, some 24/96 and BluRay upto 24/192. The higher the resolution, the less the compression.
Tom Petty just released a box set on vinyl, CD, DVD and BluRay together, and for the BluRay he commented, this is the first time people at home can actually hear what they heard in the studio. I have not experienced that on BluRay, but I have some music DvD's at 24/96 and they blow CD sound out of the water.​

BlueRay BlueRay BlueRay BlueRay BlueRay BlueRay BlueRay BlueRay BLueRay BlueRay:D
Click to expand...
 
johnnymegabyte said:
True, but highly compressed.
Click to expand...

???

I'm going to assume you mean dynamic range compression as CDs have no data compression. In that case, CD vs DVD vs BluRay makes no difference. You can put zero dynamic range compression on a CD just as easily as you can put Californication on BluRay.

If you put compressed songs on a CD, the CD is compressed.

If you put uncompressed songs on a CD, the CD is not compressed.



I don't get what you're saying.
 
Way I see it, recording at 24 bit is sorta like sitting beside someone smoking a cigarette..Even though the dense smoke goes away, you still retain "details" of the smoke in your clothes..!..:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top