Final CD and bit/sample rates?

F

funckyfinger

New member
Could someone explain the advantage of 24/98 recording over 16/44.1. Am I correct in that when the final tracks go to cd it is all converted to 16/44.1 ? If that's the case in my mind it seems there would be little to gain.
 
24 bit gives you more dynamic range (you can track cooler while not having to worry about the noise floor) while tracking and mixing and allows more accurate maths to take place with regard to reverb calculations etc.

I'm not sure of the advantages of a higher frequency.
 
One of the advantages of 24 bit during mixing is, as was said before, more accurate math while mixing and adding plugins. It gives you the ability to push all the rounding errors down into the bits that will be thrown away in the conversion to 16 bit.

The advantage of 96k is being able to record higher frequencies. There is a lot of argument about whether or not it really sounds better, so it can't make that big of a difference.

There is no argument that 24 bit does sound better.
 
The other difference from a purely "organizational" point of view is the amount of disk space the each file takes up.

1 minute of stereo 44.1kHz/16 bit audio is about 10 MB
1 minute of stereo 44.1kHz/24 bit audio is about 15 MB
1 minute of stereo 96kHz/24 bit audio is about 33 MB

So that may also be a factor when deciding what sample rate/ bit depth combination to use.
 
RAK said:
The other difference from a purely "organizational" point of view is the amount of disk space the each file takes up.

1 minute of stereo 44.1kHz/16 bit audio is about 10 MB
1 minute of stereo 44.1kHz/24 bit audio is about 15 MB
1 minute of stereo 96kHz/24 bit audio is about 33 MB

So that may also be a factor when deciding what sample rate/ bit depth combination to use.
Click to expand...

That of course speaks only to disc space, and not to the system resources needed to process the tracks. So even if you've got terrabytes of storage, but megabytes of ram and processor speed, be aware of the sytem load that higher sample rates impose. By all means though, record and mix at 24 bits. Just make sure that you dither rather than just truncating when you reduce to 16 bits. There are various dithering algorthms, and you should read up on the subject a little.
 
QUOTE]That of course speaks only to disc space, and not to the system resources needed to process the tracks. So even if you've got terrabytes of storage, but megabytes of ram and processor speed, be aware of the sytem load that higher sample rates impose. By all means though, record and mix at 24 bits. Just make sure that you dither rather than just truncating when you reduce to 16 bits. There are various dithering algorthms, and you should read up on the subject a little.
Click to expand...

This makes me think I may be better of just recording in 16/44.1. The recording end of music seems much harder for me than playing it. I
 
Robert D said:
By all means though, record and mix at 24 bits. Just make sure that you dither rather than just truncating when you reduce to 16 bits. There are various dithering algorthms, and you should read up on the subject a little.
Click to expand...

I suggest doing two versions, one with dither and one without, and listening to each to see which one sounds best. Certain applications of dither can hurt more than help.
 
funckyfinger said:
This makes me think I may be better of just recording in 16/44.1. The recording end of music seems much harder for me than playing it. I
Click to expand...
24-bit is well worth the effort. It's really not a big deal so give it a try :)

Advantages:
  • You don't have to worry about recording hot (with the consequent worry about clipping). This means you can concentrate on the music more than the technology. As long as your peaks are up to -12 dBFS you're still getting plenty better quality than hot 16-bit. If you currently find yourself obsessing about getting good levels and concentrating on the level more than the performance, you will find this is quite liberating.
  • You can compress/limit without dragging up bit-noise. This is really the answer to your initial question - although the end result will be 16/44.1 you will be using more than 16-bits during the development of your final product (both during mixing and mastering).
 
I haven't noticed a difference recording between 16 and 24 bit but I usually record loud rock stuff so I don't know. Most of the plugins I have are 24 or 32 bit anyways, so it's going to be processing higher bits anyway. I'd rather just dither at the very end and not worry about it.
 
Yareek said:
I haven't noticed a difference recording between 16 and 24 bit but I usually record loud rock stuff so I don't know.
Click to expand...
There are only a couple reasons for this.
1. You are using a soundblaster product, so you aren't capable of recording at true 24 bit.

2. Your monitoring won't let you hear the difference

3. You are recording with your levels so hot that the sound is smeared so badly you can't tell the difference.
 
Farview said:
There are only a couple reasons for this.
1. You are using a soundblaster product, so you aren't capable of recording at true 24 bit.

2. Your monitoring won't let you hear the difference

3. You are recording with your levels so hot that the sound is smeared so badly you can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Using an EMU 1820 which technically is a Creative product but it should record at 24 bit.

Probably #2 and #3 though. Lord knows my room is untreated and my monitors are forward in the mids like NS10's so it crowds the high end. And yes on #3 because even with my preamp gain down all the way it was just about clipping.

Even playing around with dither plugs, I can't really hear 16 from 24 bit, and can't even honestly tell 8 from 16 bit. My guess is my levels are too hot at that stage though with all the levels way up there. Maybe I'll do a quickie clean acoustic recording and see if I can tell that.

But that's cool because I already sold my preamp and the sound card is going away this week. Next year I'll have a laptop and Firepod setup so it will be easier to get my lazy ass into my drum room and work on my tracking instead of working on my mixing.

For whatever reason, I've been noticing MP3 compression like crazy lately. Especially in my car which has Vifa XT25 tweeters. Unless I encode with LAME VBR around 256 kbps, it drives me nuts. I'm re-encoding all my music Apple Lossless, which is about 20% better than MP3...can't tell the difference.
 
The EMU should be ok. The difference between 16 and 24 bit is in the detail and the noise floor. If you don't record anything with any detail and the levels are so hot that the noise floor isn't an issue, you might not notice.
 
Farview said:
The EMU should be ok. The difference between 16 and 24 bit is in the detail and the noise floor. If you don't record anything with any detail and the levels are so hot that the noise floor isn't an issue, you might not notice.
Click to expand...

Hah, that'd be it!

The only things I've recorded lately are my old metalcore band and my old punk-ish band. I quit both of them because they'd never heard of "dynamics" :D

My next project is an alt/emo band kind of like a bastard child of Something Corporate, Counting Crows, Copeland stuff. That should have dynamics.

Better to have bits than not I suppose.
 
There I heard it! I dug up an old acoustic thing I recorded floating 32 bit, loaded a dither at 8 bit and BAM tons of hiss and noise. 16 bit a lot quieter, 24 bit the noise disappeared into the static of active monitors cranked all the way being fed a moderate level signal.

Okay I'm not deaf :D
 
funckyfinger said:
So if I'm recording primairly vocal and acoustic guitar with alot of soft/hard passages the general thoughts are that it would be worth my while to upgrade to 24 bit?
Click to expand...
It is worth your while no matter what you are recording. Even if you don't have the playback system to hear the difference right now, you will at least capture it in all it's glory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top