16 bit recording

[barry c]

hi, new here.

just wondered if any had an opinion as to whether or not I need to upgrade my recording unit to 24 bit.

I use a tascam dp with a channel strip for tracking. Once I have guitar, i usb it to cakewalk, and add bass and keys via
usb keyboard.

Then, i take that mix and put it back into the recorder to track vocals. then usb the vocals back into cakewalk.

Its a winded process, but I like using non pc recording for vocals and guitar because i can set it in the tiniest of places and get it sounding tight and clean.

However, it only records at 16 bit. Am i handcuffing my future efforts by not recording at 24k or is it only a theoretical difference in quality.

Thanks

 

[Endorya]

If 24 bit recording was only a theory, no effort would had been done to make 24 bit recordings a reality. Though 24 bit recordings offer unquestionably more resolution as far sound levels sensitiveness is concerned, will it really be worth using it? The real question is, will the amount of extra space that 24 bit recordings take vs its resulting quality really compensate when compared with 16 bit recordings? It all may come down on what you are trying to achieve. The major advantage of 24 bit recordings lies on having an additional 250 levels of sensitiveness. But this is not saying that it will sound 250x times better. It might not be noticeable at all, depending on your settings and mainly the type of sound you are recording. More sensitiveness levels means that quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor. You can record at lower levels with more headroom making occasional peaks less likely to clip.

Since you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth both musical instruments and vocals can sound clearer. The mixing process may also be executed with less resulting noise. 24 bit does not automatically means that recordings will sound better. They can sound equally or even worst to a 16 bit recording (in some remote cases). However, 24 bit gives more noise floor and headroom to create a better recording. With the right skills, 24 bit recording can let you achieve impressive results (from what I found documented).

In my humblest opinion, if I had the possibility of recording in 24bit, I would always do it, as long disc space would not be a concern. Now, in your case, I really don't know if buying new equipment to replace your current one will actually compensate. There are simply too many personal factors I'm not aware of for me to call the right shot.

 

[mixsit]

If what you do in 'Cake is 24 bit (and 32 for the mixing) there's just those two recording at 16 bit(?..
..and depending on the quality/ experience level in the other factors going on- can make that diff. be quite minimal in my opinion.
Depends a bit too here where you want to take it long term goal wise' to build on? But with a little more care, gain staging and such, 16 bit can do very well.

 

[Massive Master]

The introduction of 24-bit recording was hailed more by the audio industry that the introduction of digital audio itself.

Not that good recordings can't be done in 16-bit -- It certainly exceeds the dynamic range of most any gear you're going to use.

24-bit exceeds the dynamic range of human hearing - and it does it quietly - with no dithering necessary at the track level.

 

[Mo Facta]

It really astounds me (and no offense to the OP) that people are still using portastudios to record. It also astounds me that they will go through so much effort to record a part, especially if they're recording one track at a time, and then bounce the audio back and forth between the computer and the portastudio. It sounds like so much work just to do a simple recording.

Why not just keep it all in the computer and get an interface? It will cut down on time and streamline your workflow. Plus, yes, you'll have the "luxuries" of 24 bit audio and higher internal precisions.

Can anyone on here sell me a pitch as to why portastudios are better than a computer-based setup, besides being portable? (Although, looking at some of the 24 track models, I beg to differ)

Cheers

 

[Mo Facta]

Oh, and if you've got a problem with disc space in this day and age, it's time to get rid of that Pentium 4 PC. Even a 250 gig drive has got hours and hours worth of space for 24-bit audio. This simply should not be a concern in 2012/13.

Cheers

 

[miroslav]

It really astounds me (and no offense to the OP) that people are still using portastudios to record.

.....

Can anyone on here sell me a pitch as to why portastudios are better than a computer-based setup, besides being portable?

I guess the same reason some tape guys use cassette porta-studios.

Something I never understood, when you can still find some decent 8/16/24 track decks if you like to roll tape.

Granted, the porta-studios (analog or digital) are...well, portable...which has some appeal, and they kinda give people a simplistic all-in-one solution, but so many end up wanting to get into more involved recording/mixing...so they end up jumping through hoops in order to continue using the porta-studios in their SOP.

 

[Mo Facta]

Exactly. I just can't see why you'd want to go through the hassle.

To the OP, if you want my advice, sell the Tascam and get a good 8-channel interface, preferably one with mic preamps. Tascam actually makes some good ones if you want to stick with that brand.

You can do SO much more with a DAW than you can with a portastudio and if you want portability, get an interface that's compatible with your laptop (provided you have one).

Cheers

 

[Endorya]

It really astounds me (and no offense to the OP) that people are still using portastudios to record. It also astounds me that they will go through so much effort to record a part, especially if they're recording one track at a time, and then bounce the audio back and forth between the computer and the portastudio. It sounds like so much work just to do a simple recording.

Can anyone on here sell me a pitch as to why portastudios are better than a computer-based setup, besides being portable? (Although, looking at some of the 24 track models, I beg to differ)
Cheers

It all comes down on how and what you are trying to achieve. If you have a studio set up at your home where all recordings take place there is no point using a portable recorder as it will only give you extra work in order to put all together. For those like me who want to record stuff around without carrying laptops and cables, the handheld recorder is the best solution possible. I can simply carry my small handheld recorder in my bag and use as necessary without effort at all. That is why handheld recorders where invented, so people can record 'stuff' around with less work as possible. Will this last method give you more post-production work? There is a good chance it will. That's the trade off, we can't have both worlds.

But actually, the work you may have unpacking and assembling the laptop and its related equipment can take as long as uploading the recordings from your portable recorder back to the computer itself. Not to mention it will also delay the time at which you can start recording. As a Foley collector (future Foley collector) I keep moving around, recording things as they appear, needing to constantly reallocating myself and my gear. Can you imagine me running around with cables, interfaces and a laptop? People have different sets of priorities and objectives. Handheld recorders were developed for a reason. Don't get surprised if people use one

 

[smili]

From some things I've read - 16bit requires you to be much more cognizant of recording hot levels which can be harder to achieve. (I've only recorded 16bit up to this point). The incentive for me to move to 24bit seems to be that I could worry less about clipping and hot signals and instead have more headroom to work with without worrying so much about accumulating noise underneath.

Again - this is just from some things I've read. I've only recorded 16bit so far and do pay attention to recording hotter levels.

 

[Massive Master]

Headroom at the top doesn't change -- The "foot" room at the bottom does --

 

[mixsit]

I'll give this another shot. At 16 bit the dynamic range and quality potentially are adequate for very good recording.
That in it's self may not be holding you back- at all.

If there are other reasons to upgrade- Do it.
I.e.-If the sound you're getting now is being limited in quality by the recorder (as opposed to your experience, your recording environment (both large factors), or you want to build up your recording tools and this upgrade also gets you a better analog front end (pre amps for the mics etc), better converters- other real quality improvements- Do it.

This is a fairly inexpensive recorder package and I take it you are using it's built in mics.
Haven't used this myself, but I would imagine better mics (and their placement options), and to perhaps a lesser degree better recording electronics, would have way more impact than the diff between 16 and 24 bit alone.

In other words- A great recording can be had with a good sounding source, in a decent recording room, feeding decent electronics -recording at 16 bit.
Make sense?

 

[Mo Facta]

Headroom at the top doesn't change -- The "foot" room at the bottom does --

PRECISELY. This is what people need to understand. 0dBFS in 16 bit is exactly the same in 24 bit and will exhibit the same readings in volts if you measure it at the output with a multimeter. It is the NOISE FLOOR that changes.

96dB of dynamic range is completely sufficient for most styles of music like pop or rock. I mean, crikey, we only use like 14dB of DR in most modern pop/rock.

So what's wrong with 16-bit again?

Cheers

 

[Ethan Winer]

It is the NOISE FLOOR that changes. 96dB of dynamic range is completely sufficient for most styles of music like pop or rock.

Exactly. The limiting factor for noise floor is almost always the room and background noises from air handlers and computer fans etc. Even if you record in a million dollar professional studio, you'll have a hard time getting the acoustic noise floor below that of 16 bits.

The notion that 24-bit recording is somehow cleaner than 16 bits or has more resolution is simply not true. This is easy to prove with standard distortion measurements.

--Ethan

 

[snow lizard]

I'll give this another shot. At 16 bit the dynamic range and quality potentially are adequate for very good recording.
That in it's self may not be holding you back- at all.

If there are other reasons to upgrade- Do it.
I.e.-If the sound you're getting now is being limited in quality by the recorder (as opposed to your experience, your recording environment (both large factors), or you want to build up your recording tools and this upgrade also gets you a better analog front end (pre amps for the mics etc), better converters- other real quality improvements- Do it.

This is a fairly inexpensive recorder package and I take it you are using it's built in mics.
Haven't used this myself, but I would imagine better mics (and their placement options), and to perhaps a lesser degree better recording electronics, would have way more impact than the diff between 16 and 24 bit alone.

In other words- A great recording can be had with a good sounding source, in a decent recording room, feeding decent electronics -recording at 16 bit.
Make sense?

You nailed it. Sometimes a fret job or even new strings, let alone mic placement or room acoustics can make all the difference.

 

[snow lizard]

The notion that 24-bit recording is somehow cleaner than 16 bits or has more resolution is simply not true. This is easy to prove with standard distortion measurements.

--Ethan

Really?

I was always led to believe that word length in PCM gives you approx. 6 dB range for each bit, and the range of calculations permissible to describe the amplitude of the wave is expressed as either 2^16 or 2^24 respectively. So the range of dynamics gets a 50% bonus in 16 vs. 24. But the range of permissible minute variations in amplitude in 24 gets slightly more than the 50% bonus.

You're saying this is not true?

Can you raise or lower the amplitude of your distortion measurements by 0.01 dB in 16 bit?

In 24 bit?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Really?

Yes.

But the range of permissible minute variations in amplitude in 24 gets slightly more than the 50% bonus.

That's the sticky part. While the steps are indeed smaller with 24 bits, it still affects only the noise floor.

Can you raise or lower the amplitude of your distortion measurements by 0.01 dB in 16 bit?

Yes, but for a different reason. Modern DAWs process audio using 32-bit floating point math. As each track is read from disk it's converted to 32 bits, and only when you export the final mix is it reduced again to 16 bits (or 24 bits).

--Ethan

 

[grimtraveller]

It really astounds me (and no offense to the OP) that people are still using portastudios to record.
Can anyone on here sell me a pitch as to why portastudios are better than a computer-based setup, besides being portable?

Yeah. It's called preference and choice.
I may be astounded that lots of people in the world prefer to cook on an open fire or use a parafin stove. But they do, they're happy to do so and it's not for me to impose my ideas of ease and convenience on them because it's not what I would choose to do.
The word 'better' is subjective and as such, inherently emotive.....

 

[barry c]

Thanks all for your responses. To answer some of the objections here, not everybody has a spare pc to use for recording only.

And most home pcs as i understand are not optimal for recording either. Especially windows 7 is not very good for recording. So where you might have 24 bit, which I have seen many debates about, you may not be able to utilize it when you use a cheap 500 dollar pc.

So, where you can afford 1000, 1500, 2000 for a dedicated pc, and need one, then its for you.

Then there are compability issues, somethings dont work in pro tools others do.

I happen to share a pc with the wife, we dont have two seperate pcs, so that would answer why one would use a portable recorder.

But if you a pc for just recording, then you have to buy all the usb gear to go with it, when some of the things I use now are still good.

Thing is, 24 bit will eventually be deemed ancient, and people will wonder why anybody uses that OLD 24 bit recording.

If your recording time frame is 20 years, you shouldnt have to buy every new piece of technology there is, unless recording is your bread and butter.

I know a guy who still records on reel tape. He knows it, understands it, and can do better productions on tape than he can using a pc.

So why do wee need this when we already have good gear. A digital recorder can give cd quality recordings. If you like to make music, recording just gets in the way.

Im just concerned with all the hardware and latency and compatability things and spending so much money to record a song.

 

[Mo Facta]

Windows 7 is great for recording. Your information there is, sad to say, incorrect.

And fine, I understand the PC dilemma. However, I ran my studio for five years on a relatively modest Core 2 Duo machine (which I still use at home and works great). Even a Pentium 4 will have more power than a small Tascam Portastudio.

If you're sharing with your wife, however, that's a different thing altogether. That's limited access and I can understand the problem.

And USB stuff? You mean the interface? It's probably cheaper than your portastudio. A Focusrite 2i2 is like $150.

And on 24-bit being deemed ancient...

That's not likely in the near future, I'm afraid. Until PCM audio gets replaced altogether with something better, 24-bit is here to stay. Keep in mind the THEORETICAL dynamic range of 24-bit audio is 144dB. We are YET to produce gear that has thermal noise beyond 120dB and that is the biggest hurdle for inventing audio interfaces with higher bit precision. Additionally, if we don't need more headroom, why bother with new formats and bit depths? 120dB is more than enough for even the quietest music. Ever heard of DSD (Direct Stream Digital)? It's a "superior" format that works on sample rates like 5 GIGAHertz and has a bit depth of 1-bit (yup, you read right, 1-bit). Apparently it sounds great, but it FAILED. Why? It can't be edited easily. There are still some studios that are able to record in DSD but for the most part, 24-bit audio is still king.

And it's not about buying new gear for the sake of progress. It's about making your life easier and being able to record something without hassle. If you're happy with the workflow of a portastudio, then by all means. It's just that personally, I could never go through the hassle of bouncing from device to device just to accomplish a simple recording. It would render me uninspired.

Reel to reel tape is a different thing altogether. People record on tape for its sound and it's still an accepted and often coveted way of recording. You said it yourself. Your friend gets better recordings on it and that's the trump card. Hell, if I could record on tape these days, I would. And yes, people use what they know and I understand that fully.

And regarding recording getting in the way...yes...that is my exact point. My personal preference is to minimize the hassle of recording as much as possible and that's what prompted me initiating this discussion.

Yeah. It's called preference and choice.
I may be astounded that lots of people in the world prefer to cook on an open fire or use a parafin stove. But they do, they're happy to do so and it's not for me to impose my ideas of ease and convenience on them because it's not what I would choose to do.
The word 'better' is subjective and as such, inherently emotive.....

Relax bro. Don't get your knickers in a knot over this. I'm not trying to slate anyone. I'm just sayin'...it's a little odd to record on a portastudio when, in my opinion, it's so much less of a hassle to do it on a computer.

Cheers