16 vs 24!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter cusebassman
  • Start date Start date
C

cusebassman

Freakin' sweet
Okay, not really. The old debate can stay hiding behind the fence for the time being.

However, in my first test recordings done with Cubase LE, I discovered that the default setup is 16-bit recording, which I found entertaining, seeing as 24 is the new wave in quality recording bitrates. I realise it slows down processing, but I figured it would be the default in any audio program by now. huh.

Anyway, even at 16-bit, the Firepod still sounds better than 16-bit digital tape from the 90s. Just an interesting observation. Perhaps they feel that anyone using Cubase LE is using a consumer-grade computer and can't handle 24 bit. Who knows :p
 
cusebassman said:
Anyway, even at 16-bit, the Firepod still sounds better than 16-bit digital tape from the 90s. Just an interesting observation.
Click to expand...


you'll probably find a big difference in the converters, particularly in clock stability and PLL/clock recovery circuitry.



as for why it's set to 16bit by default...anyone's guess.
 
MessianicDreams said:
as for why it's set to 16bit by default...anyone's guess.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing 44.1kHz is default too?
Pro Tools has 16 bit default (as far as I remember) but once you set it to 24 it remembers 24 as default instead....maybe Cubase does the same?
 
bennychico11 said:
I'm guessing 44.1kHz is default too?
Pro Tools has 16 bit default (as far as I remember) but once you set it to 24 it remembers 24 as default instead....maybe Cubase does the same?
Click to expand...

Ya know, I switched the preferences to 24, but then crashed Cubase with a free plugin that apparently wasn't worth the cost :p

So, I don't think the preferences got saved. Gotta switch it again, as I keep forgetting. I didn't check the sample-rate - didn't occur to me - of course, I think 44.1 is more than adequate, whereas 16-bit vs. 24-bit actually holds a difference in my mind. Perhaps I should be recording at 96 khz, but based on the theorem that generates those numbers, I can't help but feel 44.1 is more than enough :D

Same old argument, I know :p
 
cusebassman said:
I didn't check the sample-rate - didn't occur to me - of course, I think 44.1 is more than adequate, whereas 16-bit vs. 24-bit actually holds a difference in my mind. Perhaps I should be recording at 96 khz, but based on the theorem that generates those numbers, I can't help but feel 44.1 is more than enough :D
Click to expand...


The added sonic advantage of 24bit over 16bit is much larger than that of 96khz over 44.1khz, IMHO.
 
MessianicDreams said:
The added sonic advantage of 24bit over 16bit is much larger than that of 96khz over 44.1khz, IMHO.
Click to expand...

That's the philosophy I'm stickin by for the moment. I can always try a shootout between 44.1 and 96kHz, but something tells me that even if there were a difference, listening to the two on my KR RP-5s in my mostly untreated bedroom isn't going to yield a noticeable difference in results :p
 
with my cheap gear i can't tell the difference, but just to be sure i would do 24 bit, just to be on the safe side haha.
 
warlock110 said:
with my cheap gear i can't tell the difference, but just to be sure i would do 24 bit, just to be on the safe side haha.
Click to expand...

Yea, I plan on making sure that the settings are saved this time 'round - the interface is still new enough that I haven't embarked on any important projects with it, so its all just testing, but something you want to have nailed down before getting to work.
 
You always want the user to have a positive first impression with your product. In this case, clicks and pops is not a positive first impression. So, for the newbs who will need to setup their computer better for 24 bit audio, it's best they find that out after they go through the rip off the plastic, load the disc, and hit record (I'll read the manual later) phase.
 
Robert D said:
You always want the user to have a positive first impression with your product. In this case, clicks and pops is not a positive first impression. So, for the newbs who will need to setup their computer better for 24 bit audio, it's best they find that out after they go through the rip off the plastic, load the disc, and hit record (I'll read the manual later) phase.
Click to expand...

Ouch. But good point. Setting the software by deafult to a more system-heavy setting probably isn't the best way to start out of the gate in terms of functionality. Super sneaky.

Aww.... post #999 - my last post as a three-digit poster *sniffles*
 
cusebassman said:
Ouch. But good point. Setting the software by deafult to a more system-heavy setting probably isn't the best way to start out of the gate in terms of functionality. Super sneaky.

Aww.... post #999 - my last post as a three-digit poster *sniffles*
Click to expand...


Hey!....congrats on your 1000 posts!:)

ps..I've always used 24 bit depth, I don't think I'll ever change from there, oh!.... until true 32 bit comes out!!!

Also I've found that I've been much happier with my recordings, now that I've come out of 'hyper-drive' mode and gone back to 44.1k!!:eek:

Regards,
Superspit.
 
24bit does offer more fidelity and its apparent on my system when doing comparisons. I record at 24/48, mix/edit at 32bit AA2.0 really hard to tell if its beneficial. But then it takes more time to get the CD back to 16/44.1 red book.
 
Lectric_Lab said:
24bit does offer more fidelity and its apparent on my system when doing comparisons. I record at 24/48, mix/edit at 32bit AA2.0 really hard to tell if its beneficial. But then it takes more time to get the CD back to 16/44.1 red book.
Click to expand...

Hi Lectric,
humour me, if you like, and try using your AA2.0 in 24bit (32bit setting)/ 44.1k mode for your next recording.
I'm sure you'll be very surprised!!! (hopefully a lot happier!!)
I just can't go back to 48k now.....something seemed to happen to my mixes when coming down from 48 to 44.1.......enough for me to tell anyway.!!
Regards,
Spit.

fuck...I hope I haven't started any shit here.....oh, stuff it!:p
 
cusebassman said:
Okay, not really. The old debate can stay hiding behind the fence for the time being.

However, in my first test recordings done with Cubase LE, I discovered that the default setup is 16-bit recording, which I found entertaining, seeing as 24 is the new wave in quality recording bitrates. I realise it slows down processing, but I figured it would be the default in any audio program by now. huh.

Anyway, even at 16-bit, the Firepod still sounds better than 16-bit digital tape from the 90s. Just an interesting observation. Perhaps they feel that anyone using Cubase LE is using a consumer-grade computer and can't handle 24 bit. Who knows :p
Click to expand...

SX is set to 16bit default as well I'm sure.
I think you should be able to change the default by creating a template, and opening that each time you create a new session.

Eck
 
cusebassman said:
Okay, not really. The old debate can stay hiding behind the fence for the time being.

However, in my first test recordings done with Cubase LE, I discovered that the default setup is 16-bit recording, which I found entertaining, seeing as 24 is the new wave in quality recording bitrates. I realise it slows down processing, but I figured it would be the default in any audio program by now. huh.

Anyway, even at 16-bit, the Firepod still sounds better than 16-bit digital tape from the 90s. Just an interesting observation. Perhaps they feel that anyone using Cubase LE is using a consumer-grade computer and can't handle 24 bit. Who knows :p
Click to expand...

Whoops - got ned-repped for something someone could've just corrected me on in the thread... so I am posting my own correction, in saying that 24-bit was a "bitrate", when it is, in fact, the bit depth. Sorry for the confusion - you can all bombard me with unsigned negative rep now, to further the childish bullying :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top