16 bit / 24 bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrmoe
  • Start date Start date
I figured to type bit rate as bit depth cause I've been dealing with alot of bit rate stuff in video...

...sorry for the miscommunication

I figured it would have been clear anyways, since I covered sample rate which would logically negate bit rate as being a viable factor in the equation.
Since the value of time was occupied by samples.

A poor excuse I know, but at least I have one right?
 
....so, if I record in 16 bit I will have less volume.....can that be increased to standard cd levels when it's mastered?.....by the way, I'll be using a tascam dp01-fxcd
 
(@ moe, not rami)

Nope. Firstly, let me suggest you check out some of the online resources for recording basics, that will help a lot. I don't have time to post links right now, but I'll try to get on later today.

Bit depth governs dynamic range, which is the difference betwen the loudest and quietest reproducible sound. Regardless if you're playing back a 16, 24, 8, 32 or 2 bit source, the loudest signal is called 0dBFS (deciBells full scale), and everything else is measured down from there. Each bit adds 6dB of range.

The practical difference is the larger bit depth number means you can record at a lower input level with no degradation when you eventually convert to the lower bit depth of CD format. If you figure a good fron end has 90-ish dB of dynamic range, and 16 bits will carry 97-ish dB (theoretically), you can see it would be a little dicey getting that full range to fit. With a 24 bit system, you have, as mentioned, about 50 extra dB to work with. You could record your peaks 25 dB below 0dBFS, and simply turn the track up in software. Well, not really in most cases, but that's a longer story.
 
RAMI said:
I wouldn't be talking about that "DEGREE" very much until you're able to at least not make a complete fool of yourself in every post you make.
Click to expand...

Sir, I strongly suggest you not make light of the Close Cover Before Striking School for Prodoosahs. They employ Emmy winners, you know.
 
mrmoe said:
.....what are the practical and actual differences between 16 and 24 bit recording?.....I'm about to begin an acoustic recording and am using a 16 bit workstation.....will that be adequate, or should I invest in a 24 bit recorder?
Click to expand...

The short anser is that, yes, it will be adequate.

Many recordings have been done using 16 bit, and they are all fine.

If you are starting out, it will serve you well.
 
I guess that what I really want to know is, will my finished/mastered product have volume equal to a recording that is done in 24 bit?
 
mrmoe said:
I guess that what I really want to know is, will my finished/mastered product have volume equal to a recording that is done in 24 bit?
Click to expand...
Yes. The extra bits that a 24 bit system has allow you to record quieter signals than 16 bit. The extra room is on the quiet end, not the loud end.
 
omtayslick said:
Just wondering whether you personally record in 16 or 24 bit.
Click to expand...

I record everything at 16 bits, though I've used 24 bits when requested once or twice. I did some cello overdubs for Charles Dye earlier this year and he asked for 24-bit files. Otherwise I use 16 bits and never worry about it. I have a really nice home studio that is very quiet, but the acoustic noise floor is well above the -96 dB you get from 16 bits. This is the real issue and everyone ignores it. If your DAW's meter is higher than, say, -80 dB when in Record mode while nobody is playing or singing, there's no advantage to high bit rates. BTW, everyone's VU meter is higher than -80. :D

--Ethan
 
Ethan Winer said:
I record everything at 16 bits, though I've used 24 bits when requested once or twice. I did some cello overdubs for Charles Dye earlier this year and he asked for 24-bit files. Otherwise I use 16 bits and never worry about it. I have a really nice home studio that is very quiet, but the acoustic noise floor is well above the -96 dB you get from 16 bits. This is the real issue and everyone ignores it. If your DAW's meter is higher than, say, -80 dB when in Record mode while nobody is playing or singing, there's no advantage to high bit rates. BTW, everyone's VU meter is higher than -80. :D

--Ethan
Click to expand...

Interesting. And thanks for the reply. I'm coming around to that way of thinking. There's no way that my reording environment is THAT quiet.

Sometimes the sounds I got in 16 bit on older recordings actually sound better to me than some 24 bit recordings that I've done. But there are way too many variables in those recordings to attribute the difference to that one factor.
 
Farview said:
Yes. The extra bits that a 24 bit system has allow you to record quieter signals than 16 bit. The extra room is on the quiet end, not the loud end.
Click to expand...

You said that better than I did.
 
omtayslick said:
Sometimes the sounds I got in 16 bit on older recordings actually sound better to me than some 24 bit recordings that I've done. But there are way too many variables in those recordings to attribute the difference to that one factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is the key that so many people miss. Every recording is different than every other recording. Some sessions just sound good and others just sound not so good, due to infinite variables. So you often see people say they recorded at 24 bits and the sound was better, even though the number of bits had nothing to do with it.

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top