16 bit = sh!t

[milkweed]

Whats up everyone.I have a fostex 160 digital rcorder with cd burner.Some body please tell me that 16 bit isnt crap because everyone else is saying 24 bit this and that when i say "what does it matter when cd quality is 16 bit 44k." Some one please tell me to quit worrying so much as i know that i have heard way better recordings 16 bit than some of my friends crappy 24 bit recordings.I always believed that as long as you get the most natural sound in the first place you will have good results.

 

[Havoc]

Amen.

It will help if you do the recording 16bit, and the mix/fx etc at a higher bitdepth. But a clipping 24bit sounds just as bad as a clipping 16bit signal.

 

[Michael Jones]

Amen.

It will help if you do the recording 16bit, and the mix/fx etc at a higher bitdepth.

No.
You recorded at 16 bit, that's the resolution you have. Period.
Bumping up to 24 bit from 16 does NOTHING to increase the resolution. It might increase the file size, but not the resolution you recorded it at.

But a clipping 24bit sounds just as bad as a clipping 16bit signal.[/B]

Yes.
But 24 bit resolution while recording will give you more headroom.

Milkweed, if it sounds good, it is good!
The ends justify the means.

 

[sonusman]

No.
You recorded at 16 bit, that's the resolution you have. Period.
Bumping up to 24 bit from 16 does NOTHING to increase the resolution. It might increase the file size, but not the resolution you recorded it at.


Yes.
But 24 bit resolution while recording will give you more headroom.

Milkweed, if it sounds good, it is good!
The ends justify the means.

1 - Mixing to 24 bit means that quatization errors from the DSP will fall below what we can hear. The only other option is to a) trancate back to 16 (not a very good option) or b) dither back to 16 bit (better than trucating, but add's more noise which decreases the dynamic range.)

I think you are confusing dynamic range and signal to noise ratio. No, mixing in 24 bit will not improve the dynamic range beyond 16 if the files were 16 bit to start with, but the signal to noise ratio will improve as a result of quantiztion errors falling below what you can hear, and also avoiding multiple instances of dithering.

2 - Your use of "headroom" is incomplete. "headroom" was generally considered the upper limit that you can sum audio together before "clipping". Digital audio in itself has no "headroom" at all. 24 bit audio has better signal to noise ratio, which helps create more dynamic range. That is not entirely the same thing as "headroom".

milkweed, if you were to do everything just right in a 16 bit recording that is being mixed digitally, it will sound decent enough. If you were to do the same exact thing in the 24 bit realm, I believe it would sound better. We used to use 16 bit ADAT's to a Yamaha O2R console. When we upgrades to XT 20 ADAT's, were heard a very definate improvement in the high frequency resolution of the mixes. When we upgraded to an Alesis HD24, we heard yet another improvement to the mixes. So, yes, increased big resolution has benefits. Certainly though, a poorly recorded and mixed product at 24 bit can sound worse than a well tracked and mixed product at 16 bit. The difference is in the skill. But give the same great skill to 24 bit, it will sound better. There is science that explains why, and the "experts" agree.

Don't worry about it so much. You can do acceptable sounding stuff at 16 bit. I wouldn't want to work at 16 again, but you can certainly "make do" with it.

Ed

 

[jake-owa]

16 bit is all I really need. I record in 24 bit sometimes but I don't really notice too much of a difference, I'm sure my monitor/room situation has alot to do with that. I have 60 gig of my five month old disk used so if I had been recording at 24 bit I would have had to do some serious deciding a long time ago about what to keep. Hmmm...maybe that would keep my garbage/music ratio down, hee hee.

I mostly use my DAW as a songwriting scratchpad and I plan on rerecording all my 'keepers' onto 1" 16 track tape eventually.

 

[Michael Jones]

I think you are confusing dynamic range and signal to noise ratio. No, mixing in 24 bit will not improve the dynamic range beyond 16 if the files were 16 bit to start with, but the signal to noise ratio will improve as a result of quantiztion errors falling below what you can hear, and also avoiding multiple instances of dithering.

2 - Your use of "headroom" is incomplete. "headroom" was generally considered the upper limit that you can sum audio together before "clipping". Digital audio in itself has no "headroom" at all. 24 bit audio has better signal to noise ratio, which helps create more dynamic range. That is not entirely the same thing as "headroom".

I acquiesce.

 

[mixsit]

16 BiT = Sh!t

Not.

 

[zer0sig]

if your work doesn't sound pretty strong in 16-bit, going to 24, even all the way through the chain, isn't going to help, aside from improving your signal-to-noise ratio. my feedback? learn to make what you have sound good. screw anyone's opinion. when you really start to get good sounding mixes in 16, maybe it's a good time to start looking around. i'm still at 16 bit with a cheesy sb live recording card, and each time i record a new song, i learn something completely unexpected. this is good stuff. i could show you 8-bit, 22khz work that sounds better than some 24-bit/96khz work-it's in the abilities of the person working with it moreso than the equipment. that said, i'm not going to dumb myself down to 8/22, so my only real feedback is "screw people and their opinions"

note: this is not aimed toward anyone on here. in fact, i've found this place, all in all, to be much more level-headed on the whole than most places like it, online or otherwise. usually, by the time a post dies out, cooler heads prevail, even if there is a bit of drama in between. that speaks volumes.

 

[ebeam]

Its funny, on the two best sounding recordings I've done I accidentally forgot to set the bit depth to 24 bit before I started so both of them ended up as 16 bit. Go figure.

Also, its not all about bit depth either - especially when comparing different converters. Some 16 bit converters may sound better than some other 24 bit converters.

 

[The Green Hornet]

Yo Milkweed:

Best hang on to your pod on a windy day.

16 bit is fun stuff for me.

However, I've found that I can run 24 bit out the back of my 2816 into tape or DAT. [I don't have a DAT but have given it some thought.]

This comes out pretty well. But, using 16 bit and taking "old" cassette tracks made on a Tascam 488 long ago, I've gotten some really neat results. The thing about 16 bit, if the piano is a bit out of tune, it really comes out OUT OF TUNE. I refer to an old cut I just remastered which was done on ancient gear. 16 bit still brought it out clear and just as it was recorded.

Have fun.

Green Hornet

 

[VOXVENDOR]

Glen Ballard made do with 16 bit from start to finish on Alanis Morrissette's "Jagged little Pill"

 

[microchip]

I admit that I record in 24bit and can tell a slight improvement. But like one of the earlier posts said, I think what's importnant is that if the recording is not good at 16 bit, 24 bit isn't going to help. I think it should be looked at as helping what is already good sound better (but is not a cure for bad sound).

Think of 24 bit as in the BASF commercial: "we don't make a lot of the products you buy...we make the products you buy...better".

24 bit doesn't make the quality of sound...it makes the quality of sound better.


Micro

 

[milkweed]

16 bit

Ok you guys thanx alot. I was just making sure that i could make a full length cd with the fostex 160 bla bla has anyone had any expierience with one of those yet?

 

[chessrock]

and that when i say "what does it matter when cd quality is 16 bit 44k."

When I was much younger, the most popular playback format was 1/8" cassette tape.

I doubt anyone was saying "It will all eventually wind up at 1/8 cassette anyway, so why not just track everything to cassette?"

Same principles apply to the 16 bit versus 24 bit thing. If you sacrifice a little fidelity on each track, eventually it ads up to a fairly significant loss as the tracks are added up. It just wouldn't be fair to assume that there isn't any difference . . . when yes, there is a noticeable difference. And you should be aware of this if you plan on doing anything other than rough demos.

 

[des]

it still comes down to knowing how to record doesnt it.Im sure a good engineer would do a much better recording in 16 bit than a novice using 24 bit. Im still using 1/4" 8 track and feel i have so much more to learn about recording before i move to something better.

 

[wes480]

Glen Ballard made do with 16 bit from start to finish on Alanis Morrissette's "Jagged little Pill"

that album was recorded digitally all the way through?

Never knew that...

 

[chessrock]

Im sure a good engineer would do a much better recording in 16 bit than a novice using 24 bit.

Yea, but the same engineer will do better with 24 bit than with 16. That's what matters.

Im still using 1/4" 8 track and feel i have so much more to learn about recording before i move to something better.

One of the most important things you'll eventually need to learn is the importance of the recording medium, and why you should use the best one available to you.