16 bit or 24 bit

[Chris Shaeffer]

FWIW even 32bit recordings are done with 24bit convertors. They are stored as 32bit files, though, with the extra bits used for processing. The extra headroom only comes into play when mixing and not when tracking. I have Cubase, but I don't use its 32bit float format- too hard to transfer the files into another program and you don't really gain anything with it.

It doesn't actually increase the quality of the sound over the regular 24bit since the convertors are the same. It can sound *different* (i.e. better in some cases) because Cubase can record effects to it as you are tracking. Its kind of an illusion, though. In most cases you could add those effects later.

The "Tape Drive" feature is cool, though. Only available with 32bit float files.

Chris

 

[warble]

I thought that everything ended up as 16/44.1 at mixdown......is there a reason to record @ 24 if it gets dithered down to 16?

Yes, you dither down, but I believe that 24 bit provides for extra headroom when mixing (which comes in handy) and I can hear an audible difference between 16 and 24 bits on my system. This is my personal thought - but I think that others will concur and add their own thoughts. I've seen this argued plenty of times, and I'm on the 24 bit side. Searching around here will provide for better arguments than what I've provided, but as always, in the end it comes down to personal preferrence I guess.

 

[Farview]

There is a big quality difference when using 24 bit files. I mix down to 24 bit and dither down to 16 bit at mastering.


32 bit files in Cubase are useless. Your converters are 24 bit (so that is all the information in the 32 bit file) and Cubase processes at 32 bit anyway, no matter what the files are recorded at. The only semi-cool thing is that Cubase doesn't have to convert a 32 bit file to 32 bits on the fly (for processing). The downside is, your hardrive has to work 1.5 times harder to pull the audio off your disk. You are exchanging 1 bottle neck for another.

 

[Farview]

its no regualer protools too.. if your tthinking? i'm talking about ProoTools/HD hardware... so the quality kills... if your asking how to get the same quality 24bit/192khz and not wasting $10000 dollars then i suggest buy EMU 1820M and do research if you don't bilieve... the only bad thing is that it has 2 mic in with 48 phantom power already in the soundcard... the reall protools comes with 24 mik ins... so it worth the buy if you just need it to record voice.. read the bottom if you might ask yourself what i reffer VVVVVV

The EMU does have the same converters, but it doesn't have the same signal path leading to the converters and it isn't run by the same high quality clock. So it is not really the same.

 

[warble]

The EMU does have the same converters, but it doesn't have the same signal path leading to the converters and it isn't run by the same high quality clock. So it is not really the same.

Exactly! Everyone is raving about them, but what surrounds the converters is important as well. I'd guess that things are pretty much the same between the standard stuff and the "M" models - they just threw in some kickin' converters and have the same signal path in all models. The turntable input is thrown in there to - a sign of a truly professional interface.

OK, to be fair, I haven't tried the new EMU stuff personally, but it just seems money could be better spent on better quality/built gear and I'm talking quality through and through. There is "bang for the buck" present with this stuff, I'm just trying to figure out what's so compelling about it to so many people. Throwing in the marketing line: "the same A/D converters used in Digidesign's flagship Pro Tool| HD 192 I/O interface" I'm sure is a big part of it.

 

[Farview]

Thinking about it, the actual converter chip is probably the cheapest part of the converter. All the stuff that supports it is probably more important.

 

[noisewreck]

FWIW even 32bit recordings are done with 24bit convertors. They are stored as 32bit files, though, with the extra bits used for processing. The extra headroom only comes into play when mixing and not when tracking.

Great point. So, then what you're saying is that it makes sense to set the project at 24bits while tracking, and then switch to 32bits while mixing, specially when using plugins. Since most of the stuff that I do is done in the box (the only external sounds come from a Kurzweil K2600 and a Juno-106), then I wonder if I should even bother going back and forth.

 

[Farview]

Great point. So, then what you're saying is that it makes sense to set the project at 24bits while tracking, and then switch to 32bits while mixing, specially when using plugins. Since most of the stuff that I do is done in the box (the only external sounds come from a Kurzweil K2600 and a Juno-106), then I wonder if I should even bother going back and forth.

All of the processing is done at 32 bit no matter what the project is set at. Including mixing.

 

[digit]

I tend to record the main instruments at 24 like drums, bass, guitar, and synth etc... then the background filler stuff at 16.
As far as seeing a difference.... it kinda depends on the rest of your equipment.

I monitor with headphones so yeah, I can can tell.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I tend to record the main instruments at 24 like drums, bass, guitar, and synth etc... then the background filler stuff at 16.

Why? What's the point of that????

As far as seeing a difference.... it kinda depends on the rest of your equipment.

This is true...

 

[digit]

Just from experimentation.... I find that the instruments up-front tend to have moren ooomph and dynamics in 24bit.

Like I said though, it depends on what the rest of the equipment is like.
I usually monitor through headphones so I can see subtle differences.

 

[warble]

Just from experimentation.... I find that the instruments up-front tend to have moren ooomph and dynamics in 24bit.

Like I said though, it depends on what the rest of the equipment is like.
I usually monitor through headphones so I can see subtle differences.

Experimentation is cool! But, I'm not getting the 16 bit thing either. I can't see the purpose of doing 16 and 24 in one song - that ooomph and other stuff can be accomplished in mixing, EQing all that jazz. Getting a good mix and getting the instruments in their place can all be done in 24 bit.

BUT as the old adage goes...."Different strokes for different folks".

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Just from experimentation.... I find that the instruments up-front tend to have moren ooomph and dynamics in 24bit.

You missed my point... why bother with 16-bit at all if you're already recording at 24-bit??? There's ZERO advantage to mixing bit-depths in a recording.........