16 to 24 bit, is it a good jump?

  • Thread starter Thread starter musicsdarkangel
  • Start date Start date
M

musicsdarkangel

New member
is going from a 20 bit soundcard, which i record 16 bit on, to a 24 bit soundcard, gonna help a lot with quality?? I'm lookin for a good soundcard. PLease give me some suggestions, and i'm not a millionare, so i need a budget. Hmmm lets say under 500 bucks or around that area.
 
do it

A good move... yes. If you have the harddrive space for it. It will take up 50% more space. Then you can learn all about dithering.
My suggestions... The aardvark 24/96, or maybe the Midiman stuff. The aark stuff is pretty nice.
Paul
 
musicsdarkangel said:
is going from a 20 bit soundcard, which i record 16 bit on, to a 24 bit soundcard, gonna help a lot with quality?? I'm lookin for a good soundcard. PLease give me some suggestions, and i'm not a millionare, so i need a budget. Hmmm lets say under 500 bucks or around that area.
Click to expand...

I don't think the bit resolution is going to be all that evident in this case. Most 24 bit cards cannot achieve more then 20 bits of s/n ratio anyway. The extra bits may help when applying dsp, but in this case again, not too much.

I suspect that you are not happy with the results of your efforts, and feel that 24 bits is your solution. If so, remember that many fine sounding recording were done at 16 bit. I STILL use 16 bit ADAT's for tracking, although I use an analog mixer, and I do mix to the computer at 24 bits. I can save at 16 or 24 bits and it sounds the same. But I know that I am usually going to apply a bit of dsp during mastering, so I save at 24 bit and use the rather excellent dithering scheme in the Waves L1 Ultramaximizer to dither back to 16 bit for CD burning.

I can't understand why you are recording at 16 bit when you have a 20 bit card?!?!?!?! Record at 24 bit. It will work (unless your soundcard is doing some funky stuff.....) The lower 4 bits will just be 0's in the digital word. They will get used up the second you apply any dsp, so don't worry about that.

If you are having trouble with getting a good sound, suspect your source sounds first, mic techniques second. THEN you can start getting into the very minute difference in bit depth. Put a good hot signal to those converters while you are tracking, and make it the sound you WANT on the onset and I think you will see that a big jump in resolution is not really needed.

Good luck.

Ed
 
qwe

Part of the reason that I say its good to go 24 bit is that, although it may seem like a minute difference, it is a difference and I can ususally hear it, especially when somethings going to be altered with effects and such.
The other part is HOPING that moving up to a more advanced soundcard will yield more advanced converters, thus making it sound a little better in that area also. Again, that is only hoping, and not a guarantee. Best to read up on things like that.
Paul
 
oh dear

i definitely don't think 24 bits will solve my problems, just maybe help a bit. Holy shit, I can select 24 bit and it won't screw up?? THANX MAN! thanx all of you. This site is great, such helpful people that spend there time on losery newbies like me. Hehe oh well, hey, if any of you need help with music rather then the recording, I'm the man to come to, so hey. heh alright laters.
 
In my case, when I first bought the gear I'm using now I did a totally unscientific test and recorded the same piece of music (from analog tape source) at both 16 bit/48 and 24 bit/48. I played it back and could hear an audible difference. I then recorded the same piece at 24 bit/44.1 and 24 bit/48 and could not hear a difference (my gear does not support 96). Could just be my aging, rock'n'roll damaged ears... for whatever its worth.
 
errr

should I use 44.1 or 48?? Also, err, what the hell is DSP?
 
hmmm..

The only problem with going 48 is that you have to change your sample rate when going to CD. I dont know how this affects the sound, exactly, but it cant for the better. I know dithering, bit-wise, can create noise, but it is shapeable to less noticable frequencies.
Anyone have word on sample rates?
 
You'll get better sound with 48, but you have to dither down to 44.1 which makes it worse. Most probably the difference is going to be so small that no-one ever will notice anyway, and if the difference is audible it will in any case be overrun by the fact that [you can't sing/You CAN sing/the song suck/the mix suck/you compressed the heck out of the drums] (Pick whatever applies to you).

When you feel that the biggest problem in your recordings is that the 44.1/16 bit format gives you too much noise/digital distortion/whatever go for 96/24. Until then, concentrate on making good songs.

OK, thats my opinion. Let the flamewar begin.
 
Sonusman, has great point's about this above... Alanis Morrisette's, big hit album, with "You outta know" was Done on 16 bit Blackface adats.... Even though I can't stand her singing like a cat dying, that album is amazing sounding...... It's all in the production, and mix...There is an extremely slight audible difference between 16 bit and 24 bit....
Between 16 and 20, I challenge anyone to point out an (audible) difference... My 16 bit blackface adats, sound IDENTICAL to my 20 bit unit

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