24 bit vs 16 bit..a primer

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigRay
  • Start date Start date
BigRay

BigRay

New member
from www.24bitfaq.org :

The overriding concept here is called dynamic range, and is measured in dB. The dynamic range of a recording is the difference between its loudest point and its quietest point.

To elaborate further, each bit gives us the ability to represent about 6dB of dynamic range. A passage that is 6dB louder than another passage is said to be twice as loud as the other passage. In the 4-bit example, we theoretically have 24dB of dynamic range that can be used. But what if recording doesn’t take advantage of all that dynamic range? What if the recording never peaks beyond 6dB of its maximum possible limit? In this case, the recording would only take advantage of 3 of what we call the least significant (or left-most) bits, meaning 18dB of dynamic range. 16-bit recordings are capable of a theoretical maximum limit of 96dB of dynamic range. This means that a single wave could have up to 65536 discrete values that can be used to represent it. But if the same wave recorded at 16-bit peaks at 48dB below its maximum possible limit, then there would only be 256 discrete values that can be used to represent it, taking advantage of only 8 of the least significant bits. The 8 most significant bits would contain no information whatsoever, and would remain unused. In the case of 24-bit recording, you’d have a maximum of 16,777,216 values to choose from, and in the case of a wave peaking at 48dB below its maximum possible limit, the wave would still have 65536 possible discrete amplitude values that could be used to represent it.

Now, have you ever heard any of the early 8-bit computer recordings that floated around in the early days of home computers? Didn’t they sound just awful? I mean, you were impressed because you had a snippet of music that you could recognize playing from your computer, but you wouldn’t want to listen to it for more than a minute or two. I personally remember playing back an 8-bit digitized 5 second snippet of Van Halen’s rendition of the Kinks’ “You Really Got Me” over and over again on my Atari 800 until I couldn’t take it anymore. The thrill soon had me building an 8-bit digitizing device with a microphone input jack and a connector for the joystick port. Ah, those were the days… but I digress.

Perhaps many are more familiar with 8-bit audio from real-time internet sources like RealAudio. It’s good enough for speech recognition, but leaves all too much to be desired for music.

Now here’s the kicker in the16-bit realm. While the volume level of a recorded low-E note struck on an acoustic guitar might take advantage all 16 available bits (for instance, where the peak on the DAT deck reaches 0dB), the squeak of the fingers on the string, the scratch of the pick hitting the string, and the 5 or 10 audible harmonic overtones of that note may never reach a point beyond 48dB shy of the 96dB maximum. Yes, all of these additional by-products of that low-E string that make the guitar sound alive and compelling receive all of the fidelity of that scratchy, distorted, computerized sound of that 8-bit sample from long ago. And as the basic low-E note fades out, it too gets the same butcher treatment from the ever decreasing number of discrete amplitude values. Yikes!

Now record with a 24-bit word length, and put the CD quality back into those string squeaks, pick scratches, and overtones. With 24 bits, you can hear the clarity of the cymbals decaying as they keep ringing smoothly down to complete silence. The little low-level smack of the bass pedal head hitting the bass drum skin that sounded barely like a small click before (if audible at all) now sounds like a smack, complete with its own smoothly reverberating decay. Even the low-level acoustical reflection from the wall behind the band now contributes to the experience with added detail and a sense of ambience, not simply low-level distortion. Finally, because of this improvement, no more does the recordist have to risk overloading and clipping the recording in effort to achieve maximum fidelity. Levels can be set conservatively with the assurance that a high degree of fidelity is maintained.
 
I don't think too many people will post in support of 16 bit . . . but some stuff on this site is kind of odd, like this:

If you have a 24-bit soundcard, try the following. Make a 24-bit recording, keeping peak levels at below -48dBfs. Now make the same recording at the same level, but this time at 16-bits. Now, normalize (peak, not RMS) both recordings so that loudest peak hits 0dB. Finally, run these recordings through an A/B comparison, preferably on the computer, with the listening level turned up as loud as is comfortable. The 16-bit recording will sound very different from the 24-bit recording. You be the judge.

What the hell kind of test is that? That's a comparison of 16 bits to 8 bits, not 24 to 16. Heck, do the same test with 32 bits vs. 24 bits (if such an animal exists), @ -96dBFS. Would they then conclude that 24 bits is garbage? Although those would probably equally sound like poo, as I think there is a physical reason that noise floors can't be less than -144dB or so.

However, it can be argued that high sampling frequencies improve binaural time response, leading to improved imaging. For example, if short pulses are applied to each ear, a 15 microseconds difference between the pulses can be heard, and that time difference is shorter than the time between two samples at 48kHz. Some people can hear a 5 microseconds difference, and that corresponds to the time difference between two samples at 192kHz. In theory, this high sampling rate may improve spatial imaging.

Uh, yeah, and you'll get a much bigger difference if you move your head a couple of inches :confused:

Seriously though, low-level listening will not allow you to easily hear the benefits of additional resolution of low level signals. The best way to perceive all of the benefits of a 24-bit recording is to listen as loud as possible without damaging your hearing. For concert recordings, this would be considered concert level (about 100-105dB maximum).

Unquestionably true. If you have a -90dB noise floor, and crank peak levels to 105dB, you will hear the noise floor rather clearly. However, the type of music that is listened at that volume--well, let's just say the clarity is not the main goal. The average home stereo speaker will be significantly distorting the audio at that level.

But that does point out why 16 bit is a consumer format.
 
youd be surprised how many people dont know the difference in 16 and 24 bit.
(or how many emails I get asking why the 24 bit files of a concert that they got from me cant be burned to CD) :eek:

A couple of things are odd, but the guys that wrote that have been in the business since before I was born, and know their stuff.

teddy
 
IME word length isn't everything in sound quality. I've got AD's that sound much better at 16 bits than other units I've got when set at 24.

Tim
 
of course..thats understood. Ive got a couple Minidisc recordings (atrac compression) that sound better than 16 bit. the point they are trying to make is that ALL THINGS EQUAL, 24 bit will ALWAYS be better than 16 bit, without question..besides ... that is beside the point..as that gets more into the grey area of subjectivity IE what you percieve to sound better(your gear at 16 bit vs your gear at 24 bit)what they are dealing with is the fact of 24 bit word length recording being better than 16 bit recording and the fact is, and will always be, that 24 bit recording far outdoes its 16 bit counterpart. for myriad reasons.
 
Not giving you a hard time Ray but I thought this was settled long ago.
 
and not to give you a hard time, but I wasnt here long ago.So, that is irrelevant to me. ;) Just kidding man. Seriously though.. there are tons of new people who would benefit from seeing this info. It never hurts to post something that is educational. I guarantee you there is at least one member here who doesnt know about the benefits of one vs. the other, and unless someone stickies it, itll be a repeating question.It doesnt hurt to rehash info for newer people. (Unless it is about how to pirate something or something illegal)I see it all the time on other boards I am a member of. I suggest a sticky with this info or similar info so that people can go right to it.

Respectfully, but always a smart aleck-- :D

Teddy
 
Ray, my point is simply that higher spec ratings don't translate necessarily into better sound quality. Re what is "sound quality", see below. In the interest of clarity, "all things being equal" isn't probably a meaningful thing to many readers of the BBS who have limited experience in music production and critical listening comparisons, and who would scan this thread and get a false impression. The overall "at a glance" impression of this thread's topic is that higher specs mean better sound, though I know that's not really what you mean. Most aren't going to actually read the article, just scan the title and some main points.

Engineer and writer Scott Dorsey has discussed sound quality related to converter word length and sample rate, effect of analog stages, phase coherance and linearity etc, a lot in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup for anyone interested. Just google groups for "rec.audio.pro Dorsey converter quality" or something similar. He's really good at making very complex things understandable. And he has a well deserved reputation for knowing about sound quality.

Tim
 
Good points. I will try to digest it and regurgitate something more paletable. My mistake. I was assuming too much(what I tell everyone else not to do, BigRay ,you are a hypocrite!<<<kettle black :D
Thanks Timothy. Nice sig, by the way.rec.audio.pro is too hostile for me, I prefer not to go there too much.

teddy

)
 
Ray, I agree about the tone of rec.audio.pro... kind of an "eat you alive" place at times. I don't post there either generally... I'm a long time lurker and it's been my best info source for technical stuff. One of the things I like about Dorsey is the fact that, even when the fur is flying at that newsgroup, he's always the model of civility and class. So I always enjoy reading his posts for both audio education and his personal style.

Tim
 
BigRay said:
Good points. I will try to digest it and regurgitate something more paletable. My mistake.

No, I think we agree. We'd rather use a nice 16 bit converter than a crap 24 bit, but I think we'd all rather use a nice 24.

I note that site was written in 2001, back when good 24 bit converters were a lot pricier than they are now.

That's for us. For the average or even above-average consumer, they'd be hard pressed to hear the difference.
 
Thanks Fellas. Since I got my Sound Devices 722, I record in nothing but 24 bit. Even a resampled/dithered 16 bit from 24 sounds better to me than straight 16.
Weird logic.

I tend to mainly stick around prosoundweb.com , here, and lurk on www.taperssection.com (a lot of big name engineers hang out there, and a lot of retailers too)

I also call tony merill a lot and harass him at spaudio.

another GREAT site is www.oade.com under the "tapers section" header
 
The question I have is about dithering. Now, I've read how and why it's done, but if you record in 24 bit, but then can't play the song back in 24 bit (unless you play direct from your recorder, or via a Masterlink) how is that better than recording in 16 bit in the first place? Won't the same phenomena take place at lower DBs?
 
MK-Ultra said:
The question I have is about dithering. Now, I've read how and why it's done, but if you record in 24 bit, but then can't play the song back in 24 bit (unless you play direct from your recorder, or via a Masterlink) how is that better than recording in 16 bit in the first place? Won't the same phenomena take place at lower DBs?

The theory is that you are starting with more information to begin with. I dont know why...but i have done comparisons where I took a 16 bit source, and the same music in 24 bit(recorded using a splitter, so it was the exact same), dithered the 24 bit source...and it sounds better...I record in 24 bit for myself, and dither in order to send the music to my clients(I archive for a couple bands here) who dont understand 24 bit technology...More is always better in my opinion...

Teddy
 
MK-Ultra said:
The question I have is about dithering. Now, I've read how and why it's done, but if you record in 24 bit, but then can't play the song back in 24 bit (unless you play direct from your recorder, or via a Masterlink) how is that better than recording in 16 bit in the first place? Won't the same phenomena take place at lower DBs?
The thing is multiple tracks. Let's say you have a project of 24 tracks it makes an audible difference if they're all 24 bit vs 16 when mixed.
 
MS,

> I don't think too many people will post in support of 16 bit <

Okay, I will. :eek:

I'm perfectly happy with 16 bits, and that has never been the limiting factor in my productions. If using 24 bits were free (CPU and disk space) I might consider it. But it's not free and I'd rather have more tracks and plug-ins.

> I think there is a physical reason that noise floors can't be less than -144dB or so. <

The noise from a pure resistance at room temperature is something like -132 dB. But good luck trying to get anywhere close to that in even the most well designed sound proof pro studio room.

--Ethan
 
Ethan, I hear you and agree. But I do hear a difference between 24 and 16 bits but I track at 44.1 for all the reasons you site (storage, horsepower concerns, etc).
 
Ethan Winer said:
MS,

> I don't think too many people will post in support of 16 bit <

Okay, I will. :eek:

I'm perfectly happy with 16 bits, and that has never been the limiting factor in my productions. If using 24 bits were free (CPU and disk space) I might consider it. But it's not free and I'd rather have more tracks and plug-ins.

You've caught me off guard, because if anyone needed a low noise floor, I would have guessed it would be you, recording cello in an impeccably tuned room! But with plugs and DAWs, most run internally at far higher resolutions, so I'm not sure what is to be gained in processing power.

16 bit recording is also just too fussy in terms of levels, especially as I mostly track concerts where I am also FOH & monitor guy--it's nice to be sure my peaks are -18dB and not worry about it.

I have no problem with 16 bit mixdowns.
 
MS,

> I mostly track concerts where I am also FOH & monitor guy--it's nice to be sure my peaks are -18dB and not worry about it. <

I agree with that, and this is the one situation where I too would record using 24 bits. I used to record orchestras with a DAT recorder, and setting levels was always dicey. No matter how loudly the timpani plays before you press Record, they always play louder in the actual concert.

As for your other comment, I do indeed have a fabulous room and it's also very quiet even with the heat / air running. But the ambient acoustic noise floor is far higher than the noise floor of 16 bit recording. So using 16 bits has never been a probem. Not even a little.

--Ethan
 
Back
Top