How screwed am I????

  • Thread starter Thread starter RAMI
  • Start date Start date
R

RAMI

Guest
I was one track away from finishing a song when I realised the whole project was being tracked in 16bit, instead of 24 bit. Now, obviously, my ears weren't good enough to notice it as I was tracking. But I'm wondering if the final mix will lack enough of something to make it noticeable to someone with better ears than mine.....which is pretty much everyone.

Obviously, there's no way to improve the quality of a project from 16bit to 24bit.......................................is there????

Or should I just mix it as well as I can and not really worry about the little difference it might make???

Thanx for all your sympathies and condolences in advance. :D :D:D
 
Three words - Joshua Judges Ruth - recorded in 16 bit - fantastic sounding.

I would convert the project to 24 bit, as it will help with the processing. The actual recorded track will not get any better - it should add a bit to the mixing though.
 
Don't worry about it dude, you'll lose a little headroom but as long as the song's good you should be just fine. In fact my buddy only records 16bit and his mixes sound great.
 
Thanx guys...That makes me feel better. I definitely don't want to re-track everything. I almost wish I didn't notice my mistake. I probably wouldn't have ever heard a difference.

I'll try NL5's idea of converting to 24bit afterwards.

Thanx alot.
 
You are as screwed as a high school girl that passes out at a frat party.

OTOH, my crappy band is in the studio, the recordist only works in 16 bit. It's fine if you captured everything right the first time. If you need DVD material some day, meh, upsample.
 
Hey Rami, you're going to be fine. Keep in mind that cds are only 16 bit. That means you are at industry standard as far as that's concerned... and as for your music... I honestly sat on your site for about an hour last night listening to alot of your music... good stuff man, don't let your brain trick you into questioning your own abilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do it all yourself right??? That's what i am doing also, and I think we'll probably both agree you get your point across much better this way. You know the focus of the music, and it makes it a lot easier to emphasize that to your listeners.
 
The only time it would be a big issue is if you are recording a lot of quiet stuff with natural reverb. You should still mix in a 24 or 32 bit project for the sake of the processing advantages (more dynamic range and distinct quiet echoes and reverb tails.)
 
These replies are all incorrect, Rami. The entire project must be scrapped.

Sorry. :o
 
yup what was said. Just convert to 24 bit, it will still give you an advantage in mixing. It's not THAT big of a deal. :) You'll be fine, just use your ears, and make it sound awesome. 24 or 32 are preferable, but 16 is perfectly adequate.
 
I still do live recordings on Tascam DA-38s, and they are 16-bit on tape :eek:

Mixed through an analog 24-track console, stereo down to the laptop, the finals always come out sounding fine - never had any complaints :)
 
I still do live recordings on Tascam DA-38s, and they are 16-bit on tape :eek:

Mixed through an analog 24-track console, stereo down to the laptop, the finals always come out sounding fine - never had any complaints :)

Weren't all the early ADATs 16-bit prior to the XT20s? And I'm guessing today's 24-bit A/D converters will sound better at 16-bit than yesterday's 16-bit A/D converters... I bet it'll be fine.
 
...

I probably did that before, and, ah, didn't even realize it.
 
Back
Top