I am getting ready to buy a vs 880ex, or possibly wait for the vs 890(24 bit) to come out, but am wondering about mastering to my phillips stand alone cd deck, that is at your standard 16 bit. I will be using the optical outputs/inputs, and have heard that going from higher bits causes extra noise when there is no place for the remaining bits. I have heard that this is where "dithering" comes into play, but dont have a clue about that. I was very excited to get higher bit converters, but now am wondering if I should try to stay with 16 bit converters so that I can master to my stand alone burner without any problems. what does everyone think?
24 bit mastered to 16 bit
- Thread starter bunnyfunk
- Start date
Recording Engineer
Moderator
www.digido.com will answer ALL your questions about dithering.
Also, would you happen to be mixing-down instead of mastering?
Also, would you happen to be mixing-down instead of mastering?
I suppose you would say that I am doing a poor mans mastering. I will be using the vs 880 built in master effects, compression, eq, expanders. I want to normalize the tracks and get a good consistent level from all the songs on the playlist. so, maybe a fancy type of mixing down? I just dont want to wait for the vs890(24bit) and think I am getting better quality, when really having a lower bit rate will give me a better sound when I burn my cds.
sonusman
Banned
"I just dont want to wait for the vs890(24bit) and think I am getting better quality, when really having a lower bit rate will give me a better sound when I burn my cds."
Are you suggesting that you are getting a better finale product by "mastering" a 16 bit mix then if you had a 24 bit mix?
Also, ANY digital processing to the originally recorded sound, even a volume change that is different then unity requires that the digital audio be recalculated, which causes a longer bit word, which will have to be dithered to get it back to it's original bit length. ALL newer digital processors do this. There is no way around dithering, except Truncating, which is way worse then dithering.
Dithering decreases the percieved bit depth. That is why mastering houses want digitally submitted material to be submitted at the highest sampling rate, and longer bit depth.
I REALLY think you should read up on all this at www.digido.com . Read "More bits please", the "Dither". It is somewhat complicated, but after a few reads I think one would get what he is talking about (hell, it took me a few reads to catch it all).
Ed
[This message has been edited by sonusman (edited 06-17-2000).]
Are you suggesting that you are getting a better finale product by "mastering" a 16 bit mix then if you had a 24 bit mix?
Also, ANY digital processing to the originally recorded sound, even a volume change that is different then unity requires that the digital audio be recalculated, which causes a longer bit word, which will have to be dithered to get it back to it's original bit length. ALL newer digital processors do this. There is no way around dithering, except Truncating, which is way worse then dithering.
Dithering decreases the percieved bit depth. That is why mastering houses want digitally submitted material to be submitted at the highest sampling rate, and longer bit depth.
I REALLY think you should read up on all this at www.digido.com . Read "More bits please", the "Dither". It is somewhat complicated, but after a few reads I think one would get what he is talking about (hell, it took me a few reads to catch it all).
Ed
[This message has been edited by sonusman (edited 06-17-2000).]
Ears
ADA
You can record the mix ( or mastered mix) to an external CD recorder just like a tape recorder only through the dig in and outs.
Second you can get a dedicated CD unit for the Roland VS whether Roland , or compatible.
It will then master to the CD and burn, with music and program. It will also sound fine, great!. The dithering that goes on between the units is in no way destructive. I did all my live gig stuff to CD's from real time to an external non dedicated unit. It was flawless.
Unless your'e getting paid $1000s of dollars, are doing a jingle for Coca Cola, and can even hear a difference,which is most unlikely even in the most experienced ears, you will be fine either way, don't worry abo9ut @#$! like that.
[This message has been edited by Ears (edited 06-17-2000).]
Second you can get a dedicated CD unit for the Roland VS whether Roland , or compatible.
It will then master to the CD and burn, with music and program. It will also sound fine, great!. The dithering that goes on between the units is in no way destructive. I did all my live gig stuff to CD's from real time to an external non dedicated unit. It was flawless.
Unless your'e getting paid $1000s of dollars, are doing a jingle for Coca Cola, and can even hear a difference,which is most unlikely even in the most experienced ears, you will be fine either way, don't worry abo9ut @#$! like that.
[This message has been edited by Ears (edited 06-17-2000).]
Buck62
噛んでくれ
From my understanding, trying to mix a 24 bit digital recording down to 16 bits and then mastering it is like trying to put 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack. It doesn't really fit, so you lose a few potatoes along the way... "sound quality" potatoes, that is.
So, it seems that putting a 24 bit digital mix on analog tape... and then digitally mastering that tape, is the best solution.
No???
[This message has been edited by Buck62 (edited 06-17-2000).]
So, it seems that putting a 24 bit digital mix on analog tape... and then digitally mastering that tape, is the best solution.
No???
[This message has been edited by Buck62 (edited 06-17-2000).]
sonusman
Banned
Ummmm...Ears:
"The dithering that goes on between the units is in no way destructive. I did all my live gig stuff to CD's from real time to an external non dedicated unit. It was flawless.
Unless your'e getting paid $1000s of dollars, are doing a jingle for Coca Cola, and can even hear a difference,which is most unlikely even in the most experienced ears, you will be fine either way, don't worry abo9ut @#$! like that."
If all engineers believed that, and practiced the above, music production would be pretty lousy sounding. It is one thing to maximize the use of what you have. But, lets not confuse that with the potential of better equipement. Better gear= better sound. No arguement will sway me from that.
If you are happy with the "demo" quality of digitally processing 16 bit audio, well, cool. But, without fail, people have noticed a significant increase in fidelity of my mixes once I started mixing them and mastering them at 24 bit, then dithering them.
Dithering is destructive no matter what. But, when 24 bit audio is dithered to 16 bit, it is a true 16 bit. No loss per se.
But, beleive what you want, but let your ears be the finale judge (this only works if you have a nice monitoring system by the way. You know, one where you can HEAR the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit...
)
Ed
"The dithering that goes on between the units is in no way destructive. I did all my live gig stuff to CD's from real time to an external non dedicated unit. It was flawless.
Unless your'e getting paid $1000s of dollars, are doing a jingle for Coca Cola, and can even hear a difference,which is most unlikely even in the most experienced ears, you will be fine either way, don't worry abo9ut @#$! like that."
If all engineers believed that, and practiced the above, music production would be pretty lousy sounding. It is one thing to maximize the use of what you have. But, lets not confuse that with the potential of better equipement. Better gear= better sound. No arguement will sway me from that.
If you are happy with the "demo" quality of digitally processing 16 bit audio, well, cool. But, without fail, people have noticed a significant increase in fidelity of my mixes once I started mixing them and mastering them at 24 bit, then dithering them.
Dithering is destructive no matter what. But, when 24 bit audio is dithered to 16 bit, it is a true 16 bit. No loss per se.
But, beleive what you want, but let your ears be the finale judge (this only works if you have a nice monitoring system by the way. You know, one where you can HEAR the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit...
)Ed
I read something that put this in perspective for me..... with 16 bit you get maybe 12 or 14 "good" bits (there are always useless od bad bits) with 24 you get a good 20- when you dither that down to 16 and if your dithering algorhythem is good you can hear the difference of having those few extra good bits.
The audible differences between 24 and 16 bits will depend somewhat on the instrument that you are recording, and your monitors and you ears (as Ed said) play a big role in being able to hear that difference.
This being said, I've never had the opportunity to hear something at 24 bit's- I hope my ears will meet the challenge!
-jhe
The audible differences between 24 and 16 bits will depend somewhat on the instrument that you are recording, and your monitors and you ears (as Ed said) play a big role in being able to hear that difference.
This being said, I've never had the opportunity to hear something at 24 bit's- I hope my ears will meet the challenge!
-jhe