24 bit vs 16 bits

  • Thread starter Thread starter turtle_michael
  • Start date Start date
I can't tell the difference even on its on, even in the cymbals samples that actually have a long decay. This is mainly for the reasons that were already discussed, the noise floor of the room, the Mic, and the rest of the signal chain is higher than the noise floor of a 16 bit recording, so the digital noise floor is never reached.

Yes...I get that....just making the point that in some situations, the tails may reveal themselves, in which case the extra 8 bits could help.

Here's a short Sound On Sound article pretty much saying the same thing....that for "home recording" room/gear noise floor could make 24-bit benefits inaudible....however, in general, the author sees nothing wrong in recording 24 bit since modern computing environments allow for plenty of storage of large file sizes and you end up increasing your potential dynamic range. I mean, no one HAS TO record at 24 bits....but it does extend the dynamic range for your audio. :)

Q. Do I really need 24-bit recording?

Personally, I can see no negative side to recording at 24-bit, and only positive benefits.
 
It kills me when people argue that 44/16 is inadequate for high fidelity, then lament how much better analog tape sounds.

It kills you?? I love that argument like I love an old scratchy Partridge Family album. :D

But yeah, the OP's observations proves that psycho-acoustics run amuck.
 
It kills you?? I love that argument like I love an old scratchy Partridge Family album. :D

But yeah, the OP's observations proves that psycho-acoustics run amuck.

I love the Partridge Family. Susan Dey was a dream at any bit depth.
 
It kills you?? I love that argument like I love an old scratchy Partridge Family album. :D

But yeah, the OP's observations proves that psycho-acoustics run amuck.

The ops observation was correct, it SOUNDED better from one sample to other. The only question was what caused it.
 
Real World Advantages of 24-Bit Recording

24 bit /192 kHz sampling looks impressive as a specification. Manufacturers offer these “marketing specs” for consumers to gobble up. In practice, the analog circuitry ahead of the conversion and storage system is the defining factor of a digital system’s performance. The fact that a device is 24 bit doesn’t have much to do with its audio performance. Leaving this fact aside, let’s look at what 24 bit recording can do in real world environments with high performance gear… 24 bit resolution versus 16 bit resolution is a genuine advantage. 24 bit recording allows the sound engineer to use far more of the working range of a system than 16 bit systems ever could. In 16 bit environments maximizing the signal level into the A/D conversion stage is important to suppress system noise (yes, there is noise with digital…) In high-quality 24 bit conversion systems getting analog signals as close to 0 dBFS is far less critical from a noise perspective than with 16 bit. While best practice dictates using all of a systems dynamic range, when levels are set incorrectly the 24 bit system is far more accommodating than 16 bit.

As an audible example, six unique speech tracks were recorded to demonstrate the effect of different record bit depths on their noise floor. At each bit depth (24 bit, 16 bit with dither, 16 bit without dither) two recordings were made, one at a full signal level and one intentionally recorded 40 dB down. The tracks recorded at typical level settings had full meter deflection, while the tracks recorded 40 dB down barely registered on the lowest meter LEDs.The recordings below were made with the following equipment and parameters:

one Shure KSM44 microphone, its self-noise specification is extremely low,
Belden 1800F 110 ohm microphone cable (as if this matters…)
three 744T digital recorders, the recorders at 16 bit were fed from the digital output of the 744T at 24 bit
gain settings for the typical tracks were with ~40 dB of gain applied to the microphone input
the gain settings for the attenuated tracks were at LINE level on the 744T

All of the recorded tracks were then normalized so their playback levels would be identical. This essentially raised the digital gain of the under-recorded tracks by 40 dB. The files were then converted to MP3 format for web delivery using the Sony MP3 encoder from within Sound Forge. A direct comparison from track to track can now be made.24 Bit Recordings

24 bit with a full signal level, not right at 0 but close (128 kbs mono MP3)
24 bit with the signal 40 dB down (128 kbs mono MP3)

16 Bit Recordings – with Dither

16 bit with dither with a full signal level, not right at 0 but close (128 kbs mono MP3)
16 bit with dither with the signal 40 dB down (128 kbs mono MP3)

16 Bit Recordings – without Dither

16 bit without dither with a full signal level, not right at 0 but close (128 kbs mono MP3)
16 bit without dither with the signal 40 dB down (128 kbs mono MP3)

What you hear is that the tracks recorded at full signal level sound largely identical, whether recorded at 24 bit or 16 bit. However, the tracks recorded 40 dB down are very different. Most important is how usable the low level 24 bit signal is after normalization. It is definitely noisier than the full gain recording but it held up quite well. The 16 bit recordings highlight how important recording full scale digital is in a 16 bit environment.
 
You forgot to copy and paste the links. Even though having a discussion about sound quality with examples at 128kps. seems pointless.
 
...having a discussion about sound quality with examples at 128kps. seems pointless.

So true. :D

Same thing goes when people compare the quality of multiple digital conversions inside a DAW at various bits/rates...
......and never consider the initial A/D conversion (the most important part of any digital process, IMO)....
...so they end up just comparing how well a DAW does math. ;)
 
when levels are set incorrectly the 24 bit system is far more accommodating than 16 bit.

And if you forget to tighten the lug nuts on your car the wheels will fall off. I don't think avoiding incompetence is a valid reason to waste 50 percent of your hard drive space and available track count.

the tracks recorded 40 dB down are very different.

Again, who cares if the quality suffers when recording at -40? Bear in mind, years ago when analog tape was the best recording medium available, people managed to do pretty well even though its dynamic range is a good 20-30 dB lower than even 16 bits. The only time I'd bother with 24 bits is when recording a live event, when you never know what levels you might have to deal with. The common belief that 24 bits sounds "better" than 16 bits is a myth. The only difference is the noise floor.

--Ethan
 
And if you forget to tighten the lug nuts on your car the wheels will fall off. I don't think avoiding incompetence is a valid reason to waste 50 percent of your hard drive space and available track count.



Again, who cares if the quality suffers when recording at -40? Bear in mind, years ago when analog tape was the best recording medium available, people managed to do pretty well even though its dynamic range is a good 20-30 dB lower than even 16 bits. The only time I'd bother with 24 bits is when recording a live event, when you never know what levels you might have to deal with. The common belief that 24 bits sounds "better" than 16 bits is a myth. The only difference is the noise floor.

--Ethan

Sanity has entered the building.
 
lol.... this stuff makes me crack up.
its a funny bizarre mental trickery dickery dock.... like all the people buying 1080p HDTV sets and then watching their dvd's that are 480 and don't notice a difference because the room adds a bunch of light and the screen isn't clean.
I use 24 because I thought it sounded better too even though I cant tell a difference really. I did buy a bigger harddrive though. lol

16/44.1 vs 24/something... any DAW will have this ability, so now everyone can go run their own tests and post the results.
 
So much for the perception that the 24-bit mix sounds a tiny bit better. Seriously, this is a valuable lesson that I hope is not overlooked.

--Ethan


Except if you were capable of reading, you would see that there was an observance of a difference in sound, there was no declaration that 24 bit was the source of the difference in sound. The OP was not sure, but even the specs showed the difference
 
And if you forget to tighten the lug nuts on your car the wheels will fall off. I don't think avoiding incompetence is a valid reason to waste 50 percent of your hard drive space and available track count.



Again, who cares if the quality suffers when recording at -40? Bear in mind, years ago when analog tape was the best recording medium available, people managed to do pretty well even though its dynamic range is a good 20-30 dB lower than even 16 bits. The only time I'd bother with 24 bits is when recording a live event, when you never know what levels you might have to deal with. The common belief that 24 bits sounds "better" than 16 bits is a myth. The only difference is the noise floor.

--Ethan

But the thing is, how do YOU understand competence?

If you were anything worthwhile u wouldnt have the need to talk down to people. I suggest you find some people to actually record instead of acting like you are important, you are NOBODY.
 
You forgot to copy and paste the links. Even though having a discussion about sound quality with examples at 128kps. seems pointless.

I thought we agreed that your recording samples were pretty bad? are you still here talking like you are Bob Clearmountain?
 
Lol.....do you know who this guy is? I'm pretty sure he is the opposite of nobody in the audio world.

Yes I see he wrote a book, but anybody can write a book. And knowing audio has nothing to do with why his response was stupid.

And the opposite of nobody, would be somebody who doesnt spend time here
 
And the opposite of nobody, would be somebody who doesnt spend time here

Hmm that's really interesting. It seems that you respect the knowledge and opinions of those who are somebody based on what you've stated in this thread. Yet, if anybody is actually somebody, and those types don't go to these forums....why are YOU here?
 
I love how "Monty" has intentionally disabled comments on his YT vids.... ;)
 
Back
Top