16bit vs 24 bit

[scottyd]

im wondering if the difference between 16 and 24 bit recording is significant enough to use 24?, for example i read an article on computer performance and how to make it better, and it said that even though most people use 32bit for color quality the human eye cant tell the difference between 16bit and 32,, i tried it and i cant tell the difference,, well with that in mind i tried recording at 16 and 24 bit and couldnt hear the difference between the two either,, but this is falling on untrained ears too,, what do you guys think??

 

[TimOBrien]

Depends on what type of music you're listening to (hard metal banging the needle to the red on every note could be in 8bit and you wouldn't know the difference but music with lots of quiet and dynamics is noticeable.)

Also depends on what your are listening/monitoring with.

I can tell the difference between 16 and 24bit. But I still keep my sample rate set at 44.1kHz.....

 

[distortedrumble]

since my music is heavy but not metal....you got me thinking about that. i'm sure if i was recording an orchestra i could tell a difference but the only thing i notice is that my voice has a lack of clarity...not too noticeable if hearing it for the first time but if i play the recording done in sonar and then play the wave file through windows media 9 or 10 (cant tell what the hell it is) i can definitely hear a difference.....actually that gives me a good idea for a new thread.

 

[Massive Master]

Absolutley positively without-a-doubt wholeheartedly go at LEAST 24-bit. If you're not hearing a significant difference, get new monitors.

That being said, I do tend to stay at 44.1 if I plan on staying "in the box" - I don't mind dithering as much as I hate resampling.

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com

 

[johneeeveee]

...how much closer do the two resolutions in question get when 24 bit is dithered down to 16 for cds, compared to a bit for bit cd copy of something recorded at 16 bit? does that narrow the margin?
i apologize for my limited technical knowledge here, (i'm an analog guy), and hope i am asking a viable question. i talked about this in another thread, (thank you for trying to help, bear), but am still a "bit" confused.
thanks in advance - jv

 

[Robert D]

Here's the thing......If you just record a stereo wave file at 16 bits, and at 24 bits, and compare them, that's one thing, but if you start mixing tracks, EQing them, processing them.....then it's another thing entirely. 24 bit files will survive these processes much better than 16 bit, suffering much less from the rounding errors and much less likely to run into headroom issues. Unless you have a really old and slow computer there's no question, 24 bit is the way to go.
RD

 

[BrettB]

especially during tracking 24 bit makes a lot of difference. It gives you a greater dynamic range and lets you control your headroom more.

 

[DeadPoet]

(sort of quoting Bob Ohlssen here

24bit convertors are indeed better than their 16bit counterparts, but it's also a matter of implementation. There's still nothing that can beat a Mitsubishi's 24track 15bit convertors ...


... until you can afford that, go 24bit for tracking and mixing, but if the latter is analog, try to record the 2track at the needed resolution (24/96 if it's for mastering, 16/44.1 if it's for burning to audio CD)


Herwig

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I'd go for 24 bit if only to make tracking easier. 16 bit is a pain in the ass. You have to keep the levels hotter, you're always worrying about clipping.... 24 bit you can just keep the levels comfortably low and still know you are recording plenty of detail.

And as for the 16 bit vs true color monitor settings: The color "banding" on 16 bit drives me nuts. How can you not see that?

 

[TexRoadkill]

...how much closer do the two resolutions in question get when 24 bit is dithered down to 16 for cds, compared to a bit for bit cd copy of something recorded at 16 bit? does that narrow the margin?

As well as the factors everyone else mentioned a 24bit recording dithered down to 16bit can have the same perceptible dynamic range as an 18bit recording. Dithering from 24bit to 16bit is better than going 16bit all the way.

 

[rvdsm]

Here's the thing......If you just record a stereo wave file at 16 bits, and at 24 bits, and compare them, that's one thing, but if you start mixing tracks, EQing them, processing them.....then it's another thing entirely. 24 bit files will survive these processes much better than 16 bit, suffering much less from the rounding errors and much less likely to run into headroom issues. Unless you have a really old and slow computer there's no question, 24 bit is the way to go.
RD

Most definitely.

Sounds that are being forced into the same frequency and decibel range have to compete with one another for dominance. In the real world they have plenty of space to manuever, in digital land however that space is quantized and sound then has to fit into the available pockets or cease to exist all together. Taking two sound sources that have already been forced to conform themselves to "pockets" and forcing them to occupy the same pocket space results in a much more noticibly jarring change in decibiels between the two sounds since they really don't have enough room to remain in the same space as one another. The more "pockets" you create, the more space the sound has available to situate itself in when layered with other sounds.

At least that's they way I describe it.

 

[johneeeveee]

thanks guys

As well as the factors everyone else mentioned a 24bit recording dithered down to 16bit can have the same perceptible dynamic range as an 18bit recording. Dithering from 24bit to 16bit is better than going 16bit all the way.

... this is actually the answer i was looking for, and all of these posts have been very helpful. i guess i was happy with the results achieved with 1 or 2 inch tape, mixed down to 16 bit dat (as was the stardard a while back). i am looking forward to exploring the new possibilities in fidelity (although i don't think i will abandon analog tape anytime soon).
thanks again - jv