16-bit vs. 24-bit

[Jack Russell]

Some say the 16-bit version is good enough for most music; others say 24-bit is the way to go.

What do you think?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

If you have the option, 24-bit.........

 

[Jack Russell]

Thanks, Blue Bear. But can you explain why? I've heard that 24-bit is mainly just for DVD soundtracks, not music production. Plus, there are those who say the human ear can't distinguish the difference between 16 and 24. Not sure if I agree with that, but I've heard it said.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

There's a long answer - but I've repeated it a number of times lately (do a search).... so the really short answer is:

- all things being equal (ie converter quality), a 24-bit representation of a signal will be more accurate than a 16-bit (ie, better approximation of the original signal = it sounds better)

OTOH, a poor-quality 24-bit converter will sound worse than a high-quality 16-bit converter.

And incidently, 24-bit is used all the time in music production......

 

[Jack Russell]

Thanks! Will do a search also.
-regards,
JR

 

[cordura21]

Hey Jack. Take a look at the pictures at this site, below the 4th paragraph:
http://fla.esf.edu/research/CAVLab/reference/candbd.htm

I find that the visual analogy makes sense to understand the basics of bit depth.
Andrés

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Hey Jack. Take a look at the pictures at this site, below the 4th paragraph:
http://fla.esf.edu/research/CAVLab/reference/candbd.htm

I find that the visual analogy makes sense to understand the basics of bit depth.
Andrés

That's an excellent visual..........!

 

[warble]

Hey Jack. Take a look at the pictures at this site, below the 4th paragraph:
http://fla.esf.edu/research/CAVLab/reference/candbd.htm

I find that the visual analogy makes sense to understand the basics of bit depth.
Andrés

I like that.

 

[Jack Russell]

Thanks for the color link. I actually know more about photography and image resolution than I do audio. hahaha. Such as using 4x5 inch negs over 35-mm ones.

Not sure you are making your point more solid or less, though. If you look at the 8-bit and 24-bit unenlarged images, to the human eye they are identical (at least on my comp screen they are!). Sure, the magnified views show more detail in the 24-bit image, but that isn't what you will see with an unmagnified view.

The resolution gain in the 24-bit image is lost anyway in that it is out of focus just enough to loss clarity.

So, the question returns to the basic answer "More bits are better because they give you more detail." But can you hear the difference?

[At this point, I'll need to search for BBS's long version of his explanation for 24 over 16....;-)]

 

[NL5]

Thanks for the color link. I actually know more about photography and image resolution than I do audio. hahaha. Such as using 4x5 inch negs over 35-mm ones.

Not sure you are making your point more solid or less, though. If you look at the 8-bit and 24-bit unenlarged images, to the human eye they are identical (at least on my comp screen they are!). Sure, the magnified views show more detail in the 24-bit image, but that isn't what you will see with an unmagnified view.

The resolution gain in the 24-bit image is lost anyway in that it is out of focus just enough to loss clarity.

So, the question returns to the basic answer "More bits are better because they give you more detail." But can you hear the difference?

[At this point, I'll need to search for BBS's long version of his explanation for 24 over 16....;-)]

Uh-oh Jack, It's all over now...... Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[Jack Russell]

Yes, ideed, it is clearly and absolutely over now. Well over. Past due. Late late late, and a dollar short. Overdrawn at the bank.

 

[NL5]

Woke up, a little to rough, lookin' like a quarter when a dollar ain't enough

 

[Treeline]

I recall that 24 bit depth allows something like 250 times the useable data that 16 bit depth allows for the same musical passage. That translates to degrees of subtlety. If you track and process at a high bit depth, the result will sound better than if you processed it at 16 bit. Than you reduce a better sounding master track to 16 bit CD format. Result = it sounds more gooder.

 

[gordone]

To help with your photography example - Having 24-bits vs. 16-bits is better when applying digital effects (reverb, compression, eq, etc) during mixing even if the final product has to be dithered down to 16 bits.
If you plan on doing stuff to a picture using photoshop (adding effects), but plan on rendering the final picture to a smaller web-based jpg, you'd agree tha you would rather apply the photoshop effects to a higher resolution original?
Same thing with audio.

Oh, not sure if anyone else mentioned this, but another advantage of 24-bit audio is that it allows you to track at a lower level (no clipping worries) and still keep a fair amount of detail compared to tracking at 16-bits.

 

[dave in toledo]

photographic anology

try not to go this way, the reason you dont see a difference is becouse your screen resoution is only 72 dpi, so the bit rate doesnt show to your eye, we make large format digitla prints here at Digital Projected Imagery..if you make a 36"x 72" print, youd see the difference....

applying a photoshop effect to a 300 dpi file or a 1200 dpi file there is no difference in the effect or how it lookes, only anology to the web based photo is the same answer, the web based photo is only 72 dpi because so is your screen..... get it, so stay away from this analogy it leaves the wrong impression about audio bit rate