16 bits and 24 bits????

[robertnat]

hi everyone!

i am a nnnewbie in recording and i´m thinking of buying a HD recorder pretty soon. my choices have been limited to 2 multitrackers (considering my budget and i am buying it used) -
the fostex vf 08 and the tascam 788.
now i am really confused about the 16 bit and 24 bit stuff. can someone help me out? which one of them is the better choice?

another thing is, i am using cubase to do some midi drum loops. and i´d like to import them to the HD before recording the guitar and vocal parts. which one of them is best suited for this purpose??

many thanks in advance!!
robert

 

[regebro]

24 bits are better. And please use black text. Your second question I did not understand.

 

[Farview]

If you are running cubase, what do you need the multitrack for?
24 bits is better, you can always play the drum loops out of the computer soundcard into other equipment.
And yes, please use black text.

 

[aaroncomp]

Like Farview was asking, what do you need the multitracker for? Buy a soundcard, USB, or firewire setup - that way, you can do all your mixing in Cubase and not have to worry about sending things back and forth. I'm not the best person to ask for a suggested soundcard/usb/firewire device, though - check the forums, etc.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

IMHO if you don't know the difference between 16 and 24 bits you aren't ready to record yet.

Hit the books, search the web and ask more questions on this forum before you (literally) waste your money.

 

[regebro]

actually, you ARE ready to record. Just don't buy any soundcard. Use the built-in one. It will do for now. Then use some free or cheap software, like n-tracks.

 

[Tifstorey]

IMHO if you don't know the difference between 16 and 24 bits you aren't ready to record yet.

Hit the books, search the web and ask more questions on this forum before you (literally) waste your money.

Personally, I think one of the best ways to learn something is by actually doing it with hands on experience, rather than just read books on it. Obviously your going to have to learn about it, which is where the books come in, but that doesnt mean you cant be trying out the equipment at the same time! Read the books at night, record in the day! (if you have plenty of time that is..)

Like Regebro said, dont be too hastey in purchasing some equipment, try and make the best out of what you have, and get a taste for it. Once youve done that, you should know which best suits your needs. Worst thing you can do is buy something then regret it, especially on a tight budget!

Good luck,

Peace

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Personally, I think one of the best ways to learn something is by actually doing it with hands on experience, rather than just read books on it. Obviously your going to have to learn about it, which is where the books come in, but that doesnt mean you cant be trying out the equipment at the same time! Read the books at night, record in the day! (if you have plenty of time that is..)

Except the fact that you will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on equipment only to find out it wasn't what you needed or wanted, or does what you *thought* it would do in your inexperience.

My point is from the perspective of saving money. Trust me, if he's like 99% of the world he has way more time than money.

 

[Tifstorey]

You read wrong mate, im not saying go out and buy lots of equipment. Im saying use the standard soundcard in the Pc, download some free software, get a cheap £20 mic and record that way! You learn so much more with actually playing around with it all than reading books. And this way costs nothing hardly. Like i said, you have to read the books, and you have to do your research, but you cant learn how to fully record with just reading books...

 

[regebro]

Except the fact that you will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on equipment only to find out it wasn't what you needed or wanted, or does what you *thought* it would do in your inexperience.

My point is from the perspective of saving money. Trust me, if he's like 99% of the world he has way more time than money.

thats why he shouldn't buy anything. except n-tracks. heck, start with the plastic mic that came with the soundcard!

Then, when you understand what happens when you push the red button, and how to mix a song, THEN it's time to figure out why it sounds like shit. becuase you can't learn that from a book. I totally agree. Hands on experince is the key.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

As long as they keep it cheap, and focus on learning I don't see a problem.

Back in my day (80's) there weren't many books, and all the gear was expensive... so it generally sucked to try to learn to record.

 

[underp]

I don't see any difference, it looks the same to me.

Check the pic , hehehe.

if you know what compression is, you'll see why resolution is so important.

 

[robertnat]

hi everyone!
first of all a very big thanks to all! you guys are really helpful. you know, i have gone through the free software stuff and experimenting. and the end song sounded so crappy that i didn´t know why i even bothered? but anyway,i hope that would be apart of history... coz, i just went and bought myself a roland u-8. you know, one of those usb thing? it was a bargin and i just couldn´t resist. now i have a sound basis to experiment on...
thanks again to all those who helped out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lots of fun
robert

 

[gr8teful]

Tell me if this is right.

16 bits describes the amount of data used to describe the analog wave form. The term "word length" seems to work for me. So, there's 16 bits of "word length" used to describe the incoming analog wave form. Right? Then the sample rate is how many times the analog wave form is sampled to be recorded digitally?

Comments? Corrections?

 

[NL5]

Tell me if this is right.

16 bits describes the amount of data used to describe the analog wave form. The term "word length" seems to work for me. So, there's 16 bits of "word length" used to describe the incoming analog wave form. Right? Then the sample rate is how many times the analog wave form is sampled to be recorded digitally?

Comments? Corrections?

One thing to add -

16 bits to 24 bits is not 1 1/2 times better, it's 256 times the resolution. HUGE difference in SQ.

I'm now in agreement with most here tha sampling rates above 48k make a negligable difference, but 16 to 24 bits is HUGE!

 

[regebro]

16 bits to 24 bits is not 1 1/2 times better, it's 256 times the resolution. HUGE difference in SQ.

Both 1.5 and 256 are unfair numbers. Those 8 extra bits give you 36 db extra headroom and detail. That's a number that tells you more, if you know what db is, of course. ;I

 

[gordone]

Very close, but I would explain it as such:
Sample Rate is how many times a second a "snapshot" of the incoming analog signal is taken. (ie. 44,100 times a second for CD audio) Word Length is how big each snapshot is.

Tell me if this is right.

16 bits describes the amount of data used to describe the analog wave form. The term "word length" seems to work for me. So, there's 16 bits of "word length" used to describe the incoming analog wave form. Right? Then the sample rate is how many times the analog wave form is sampled to be recorded digitally?

Comments? Corrections?