32 >16 (Dither)...better results than 24 > 16

mark4man

mark4man

MoonMix Studios
kinda wondering...

what happens when one dithers a (legal) 32-Bit FP file all the way down to 16-Bit w/ their favorite dither box ??

reason I ask is...I'd been used to (like everyone else, I suppose) bouncing out of the DAW (SONAR) at 32-Bit FP...then brick walling to legal in the mastering rig (WaveLab) while rendering to 24-Bit at the same time...then, dithering (UV22HR) & rendering to 16-Bit ftom 24.

[i had been doing this 'cause I assumed (& had heard) that A) the quantization error from 32 > 24 is miniscule & well below the audible range & B) it's a legal file after limiting anyway so I may as well render to 24...why waste bits.]

I did one today whereby I kept the file size/format at 32-Bit FP during the brick wall phase...(so that it was also 32-Bit FP after limiting)...& then dithered all the way down to 16 from 32 as the final stage. It sounded audibly way better (in comparing both methods) to the old method (24 > 16).

most notable was a more accurate reproduction of transients (snare, cymbal crashes, et al.) [i had used elephant 2 on clip for the limiting phase].

guess I'll keep this new (new to me, that is) method...but I'm wondering what's goin on technically w/ it ?

thanks,

mark4man
MoonMix Studios
ADK Pro Audio Core 2 | Intel DP35DP MoBo/Chipset | Intel Q6600 Quad Core CPU | 4 GB SuperTalent DDR2-800 CL5 RAM | Seagate 160 GB SATA II Primary HD | Western Digital 320 GB SATA II Audio HD | Lynx Aurora8 ~ AES16 | Universal Audio UAD-1 | SONAR PE 7.0.2 | Cubase LE | WaveLab 5.0.1b | NI Komplete5
 
It is always possible that with your original approach you were actually dithering twice (not necessarily deliberately but in one of those settings buried in preference menus). Even then while the audio differences might well be detectable I'd typically be surprised to have them described as 'way' better . . . I'd tend to find them falling in the subtly more distinct, depending on room and monitor chain.

Additionally I would think the differences to be more noticeable in reverb tails then with percussion transients (though subtly more distinct territory for either)

All of it might be dependent on algorithm you use for dithering as well . . . But if everything else was 'equal' (no difference in noise shaping, no double dither) the only thing going on would be lower quantization error via floating point

In any case I'm not sure I understand the need for a 24 bit intermediate step unless project is going to mastering house that can only deal with integer files in which case you wouldn't dither anyway. I would think any possible 'savings' from an intermediate 24 bit step would be absorbed by the time that step eats
 
mark4man said:
I'd been used to...rendering to 24-Bit at the same time...
...
I did one today whereby I kept the file size/format at 32-Bit FP ...& then dithered all the way down to 16 from 32 as the final stage.
Click to expand...
I'm with oretez in that I'd have a hard time attributing something sounding "way better" strictly to dithering technique. Sure there can be incremental and fairly audiophiliac/golden ear differences, if any at all, but I am hard-pressed to provide a dither-level or word length change-related explanation to an obvious-class audible change.

I'm not sure I'm understanding all the details of the differences in your two work flows (other than the extra dithering step.).

In the old method you say that you limited and dithered to 24 "at the same time". What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that you had the same plug performing both functions, or that you performed them sequentially using two plug instances in one pass?

And other than going direct to 16 instead od stopping over at 24 in-between, how did the new method differ from the old one? Was it simply that the limiting and dithering happened in two passes instead of one? And was all hardware and software used the same in both methods?

And finally, how about the source material? Was it the same in both instances, or not the exact same material but similar genre and mix style, or rather different altogether?

G.
 
fellas...

I wasn't claiming two different dithering steps...or...even a better sound resulting from same.

there is only 1 use of dither in either method.

I was just wondering if going from 32 to 16 is acceptable...in terms of the way the software works, standard mixing/mastering practices, etc.

thanks,


mf


btw - & yes...I realize that oretez hit on that in saying that 32 > 16 eliminates that chance for quantization noise...thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top