16 vs. 24

A

audioidkid

New member
i thought i read a thread about this a while back in this here cakey forum of ours. some people swore that 16 made no difference to 24. someone claimed they could hear a difference. someone claimed they could not hear a difference. i can't hear a difference, at least with the stuff i'm doing. obviously we all want our stuff to sound the best as possible but unless flood, butch vig, steve albini, or some other uber producer/engineer is recording your stuff in a multi-million dollar studio, does it really matter that my shitty screamo-aggro-metal guitar riffs are in 24 bit format. no, not really.
 
Yes, really. At least, that is, if you plan to do any DSP to them after recording.

If not, then you're probably right.
 
So, let me see if I get this right: If you plan to do a lot of DSP (Digital Signal Processing) the best way to go is, when starting a new project, to set the audio to 24-bit; then, when you're done, you dither back to 16 before exporting and burning the "premastered" mixed down final copy?!!!

Carlos
 
carlosguardia said:
So, let me see if I get this right: If you plan to do a lot of DSP (Digital Signal Processing) the best way to go is, when starting a new project, to set the audio to 24-bit; then, when you're done, you dither back to 16 before exporting and burning the "premastered" mixed down final copy?!!!
Click to expand...
I would say: Export the mix in 24-bit, do your "mastering", and dither to 16-bit for CD-burning.... ;)
 
I would agree with moskus. When you say "premastered," you are implying additional DSP (during the mastering process). Therefore, leave the file at 24 bits until you are completely finished with it. THEN dither to 16 bits and burn to CD. If you are planning to send it to a mastering facility, send them the 24 bit file and let them dither to 16 bits (they'll probably have better tools for it than we do).

If you plan to do a lot of DSP (Digital Signal Processing) the best way to go is
Click to expand...
I would suggest if you are planning to do ANY dsp, then start at 24 bits.
 
16 vs. 24 and dsp

so what kind of stuff does one do when they get to the dsp portion of their project? i have 5 different projects in various states of tracking completion (all of which were recorded in 16bit) and i'm learing on the fly here. so, i guess i'm asking that once all of my tracking is done and mixed (pro audio 9 user) what is the next step for "mastering." do i need to purchase different software? sorry, i'm a newbie.
 
Processing of the signal occurs at all phases of the project - not just in the mastering phase.

Anytime you change eq settings, or add reverb, compression, delay, or normalize the signal, or add a fade out, etc., you are *processing* the signal(s).

Since in the digital world this is all done via mathmatics, having a 24 bit starting file will allow you to represent the "processed" signal more accurately. IOW, is the square root of 2 equal to 1.4, or is it 1.4142135? If you are going to do further calculations based on the square root of 2, do you think the additional calculations would be more accurate using 1.4 or 1.4142135?

What's the square root of 2 times itself? 1.4 times 1.4 = 1.96, whereas 1.4142135 times 1.4142135 = 1.9999998. So which is more accurate?

That is essentially what we're talking about. Ultimately you will need to reduce the file to 16 bits for burning to a CD. However, in the interim all of your processing will be more accurate with the higher bit rate.
 
Ok, I think I get it. I was doing everything in 16 bits becuase I figured that the dithering process might affect the track negatively and I thought that I had to have the track at 16 bits in order to be able to burn the audio and be able to play it back on a normal cd player (what I thought was that it was a burner limit... since my burner is kind of old). I am planning on sending my tracks, once I'm done recording, editing and mixing them to Sterling Sound in NY (they have an afterhours thingy that costs $1,200 for their mastering... or at least that is what I understood from their website http://www.sterling-sound.com/ah ) Anyways, I still have to track the actual songs... what I have now is the drafts that I did in the composition process... and they are rough so I decided to re-track everything and add real drums... I guess now I'll do that at 24 bits and send THAT to Sterling. BTW, any of you have ideas, comments or suggestions about Sterling or other mastering facilities?! I chose Sterling simply based upon the fact that they have done the mastering to half of the albums whose sound I like the best... then again, I presume that the "after hours" thing is not done by the Senior Mastering Engineers but probably some interns, however, it is still Sterling right?!

Carlos
 
thanks for speaking my language d2t. the math examples made it easy to understand. o.k., so what about software for mastering. i'm not going to spend $1200 per session......at least not at this point. is there anything i can do that is less expensive
 
Real Mastering is expensive... There are some plug-ins like the iZotope OZONE, the BBE Sonic Maximizer, The Waves L1-Ultramaximizer+ and even though they are cool to have and do help you final sound they are NOT mastering. Close, but no cigar.

Carlos
 
carlosguardia said:
they are NOT mastering. Close, but no cigar.
Click to expand...
No, but they help you to master. For a home-mastering debate, visit the Mixing and Mastering forum.

I'm not a pro, but a little treatment in SoundForge really makes the song better. ;)
 
I haven't tried the rackmount but the original outboard units in general SHOULD be better than the plugs.

Moskus- yeah, those plugs do help a bunch, but for my next project, once I'm done with mixing AND "PREMASTERING" with those plugs, I'm going to make that ballsy move and send it to sterling in NY for a "Pro" job. Hopefully my 1200 will be well spent and the project will result in a nice, memorable, album...

Carlos
 
carlosguardia said:
Moskus- yeah, those plugs do help a bunch, but for my next project, once I'm done with mixing AND "PREMASTERING" with those plugs, I'm going to make that ballsy move and send it to sterling in NY for a "Pro" job. Hopefully my 1200 will be well spent and the project will result in a nice, memorable, album...

Carlos
Click to expand...
Carlos, if you plan to send it to a professional mastering house, I would suggest you not do any "pre-mastering." Generally that could very likely create problems for the mastering house. For ex., if you raise the volume using the L2 or Ozone, you could be using up headroom that they might need for EQ adjustments.

Generally I would recommend doing the best mixing job that you can, and then send it to them that way.
 
Thanks Dachay2tnr - You're totally right; what was I thinking when I posted that?! I'm going to re-track every song, as 24 bit new projects. I'm going to track, a guide rhythm guitar, then drums, bass, guitars, keys and then voices and solos. I'll then convert the .mids to .wavs; I'll then add any effects, play around with them until I'm happy and then apply them to the tracks. Finally, I'll mix the tunes to sound the best that I can... and off to NY they go.

Does this sound like a good plan?! ;) Or am I missing something?!

Thanks again for your replies guys, I have learned so much in this forum I practically think that I'm a recording engineer now!!! :D

Carlos
 
I'm just thinking that if I was spending $1200 on mastering, I would get the music recorded and mixed in a better studio than a home-studio... Just my two cents. ;)

Other than that, you're spot on...
 
Moskus

Well, my little home studio might not be packed with equipment that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars; and I know by your comment you weren't dissing my studio, but the great advantage of recording in my studio as opposed to a "better" studio is that I own it and live right next to it (the studio is an addition to the house) so it gives me more control over the recording process and it can take as long as it takes to get whatever I want to get, right. This without having to pay for the hour or a couple thousand dollars for a full project at another studio. The project I'm working on is a concept album and the songs would probably fit in the category of "progressive rock/metal" with slow piano and violin melodies and harmonies and literally dozens of electric guitar tracks with telecasters and my Jackson with Dimarzio Tone Zone humbuckers, meter and tempo changes, different singers, a part with a string quartet playing immitative counterpoint, parts with only a spanish made, nylon string classical-electric etc etc so I want to concentrate in getting the recording right, with as much time dedicated to it as possible without having to spend money, and then, spend on mastering it with the best mastering facility within my budget (I don't plan to spend over 1,500 in that). But maybe I planned things wrong... I still don't know and am kind of questioning my planning as of right now....

Carlos
 
Some of the stuff I did in Sonar was 16bit, after doing some plug-ins and comparing, I just converted my 16bit tracks to 24bit than did the processing, I no it's not the best way, but I could'nt re-record the stuff and the reverb sounded so so much smoother at 24bit. And yes I agree don't do any "pre-mastering" if your going to send it in to be mastered.
 
i love my bbe. it could quite possibly the single most important part of my guitar rig. that thing is the magical black box. i have the cheapy mono bbe 362. i think that they're selling for about $100 now, if you can still find one. if you can, they are certainly worth the hundo. since i'm on the subject. i'm running my rack in parrallel-no effects loop. this is the order: guitar to digitech whammy pedal to vox wah pedal to digitech valve fx to alesis quadreverb gt to the bbe to an ada 200 watt microtube power amp and then to a marshall jcm 900 lead 1960 4X12 slant cab. i play fenders exclusively. i have a 57 reissue strat that was made in 1983, a cheapy mexican made strat (stickered and pictured in the "hey moskus" thread) and a cheapy american made squire. the cheapy guitars were the road warriors because i could dial in any sonic fixes with the rack, plus i just couldn't bring myself to take the 57 out of the house after a guy i knew had his 58 les paul stolen at a show he was playing at. ugh. by the way, ya'll are a great help...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top