24 vs 16

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnbob
  • Start date Start date
bblackwood said:
dBFS = dB Full Scale.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I tried converting my 16 bit tracks that I already had to 24 bit and didn't notice too much. When I recorded a new song from scratch at 24 bit I noticed a huge difference and it sounds great!. Thanks for all the help!

The crackling that I was hearing before has been cleared up. It is an issue between my Firepod and Digital Performer. All I had to do was set the work priority to low and oddly enough it cleared everything up.
 
vigormusic said:
I tried converting my 16 bit tracks that I already had to 24 bit and didn't notice too much.
Click to expand...
When you did this, you weren't changing anything. If you only have 16 bits of info recorded, that is all it will ever be.
 
Farview said:
When you did this, you weren't changing anything. If you only have 16 bits of info recorded, that is all it will ever be.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I figured happened. Someone said mixing at a better bit rate would apply the effects better. I think I just may re-record the stuff that I want to keep though
 
Just playing devil's advocate in the spirit of sparking further discussion.

Is higher bit depth/sampling rate recording really all that necessary, given that we live in the age of iPods, mp3s, FM and badly compressed digital radio? I mean, they make anything, no matter how well recorded sound irritating, brittle, and just plain 2 dimentional, so why bother? Aren't we just feeding in to the almighty marketing machine?

Even if we put aside the iPods and mp3s for a second. Given the fact that most pop records nowdays have a dynamic range of perhaps no more than 6dBs, do we really need better than 120dB dynamic range?
 
vigormusic said:
Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I figured happened. Someone said mixing at a better bit rate would apply the effects better. I think I just may re-record the stuff that I want to keep though
Click to expand...

That was probably me. To reiterate:

Changing a file from 16 bits to 24 bits does nothing. It is the equivalent of changing the value 1.0 to 1.00000000.

HOWEVER... if you continue to manipulate the audio after you make the change, you are performing additional mathematical calculations which may benefit from having those 8 extra binary places. Obviously not as big a difference as if you had recorded everything from the beginning at 24 bits, but still not a bad idea to try.
 
noisewreck said:
Just playing devil's advocate in the spirit of sparking further discussion.

Is higher bit depth/sampling rate recording really all that necessary, given that we live in the age of iPods, mp3s, FM and badly compressed digital radio? I mean, they make anything, no matter how well recorded sound irritating, brittle, and just plain 2 dimentional, so why bother? Aren't we just feeding in to the almighty marketing machine?

Even if we put aside the iPods and mp3s for a second. Given the fact that most pop records nowdays have a dynamic range of perhaps no more than 6dBs, do we really need better than 120dB dynamic range?
Click to expand...

Your assumption is that all of us are doing the same kind of music. We aren't.
 
noisewreck said:
Just playing devil's advocate in the spirit of sparking further discussion.

Is higher bit depth/sampling rate recording really all that necessary, given that we live in the age of iPods, mp3s, FM and badly compressed digital radio? I mean, they make anything, no matter how well recorded sound irritating, brittle, and just plain 2 dimentional, so why bother? Aren't we just feeding in to the almighty marketing machine?

Even if we put aside the iPods and mp3s for a second. Given the fact that most pop records nowdays have a dynamic range of perhaps no more than 6dBs, do we really need better than 120dB dynamic range?
Click to expand...
I have one reason: pride in workmanship.

Fuck the rest of 'em if they're going to listen to my stuff as MP3s in iPod earbuds. I'm still going to make my stuff sound as good as I can. If they can't get the full fidelity, that's their problem and their loss. But I'm not going to dull my work just because Joey Skateboard doesn't care.

G.
 
noisewreck said:
Just playing devil's advocate in the spirit of sparking further discussion.

Is higher bit depth/sampling rate recording really all that necessary, given that we live in the age of iPods, mp3s, FM and badly compressed digital radio? I mean, they make anything, no matter how well recorded sound irritating, brittle, and just plain 2 dimentional, so why bother? Aren't we just feeding in to the almighty marketing machine?

Even if we put aside the iPods and mp3s for a second. Given the fact that most pop records nowdays have a dynamic range of perhaps no more than 6dBs, do we really need better than 120dB dynamic range?
Click to expand...

I agree with the two above me...and also like to add:

imagine how those crappy compressed audio files would sound if we DIDN'T worry so much about the way our mixes sound? The way I see it, we (the audio people) are the only ones saving people from the compression world!
 
littledog said:
Your assumption is that all of us are doing the same kind of music. We aren't.
Click to expand...
Not at all! My assumption (not without merit) is that the general public is quite happy downloading mp3s and not giving a rat's ass about 24 bit/96kHz audio.

Not that I don't agree with the other posts ;)
 
littledog said:
That was probably me. To reiterate:

Changing a file from 16 bits to 24 bits does nothing. It is the equivalent of changing the value 1.0 to 1.00000000.

HOWEVER... if you continue to manipulate the audio after you make the change, you are performing additional mathematical calculations which may benefit from having those 8 extra binary places. Obviously not as big a difference as if you had recorded everything from the beginning at 24 bits, but still not a bad idea to try.
Click to expand...

Thanks again. I'll try doing a mix of one of my 16 bit tracks and then converting it up to 24 to see if there is that much of a difference.

I agree with the two above me...and also like to add:
imagine how those crappy compressed audio files would sound if we DIDN'T worry so much about the way our mixes sound? The way I see it, we (the audio people) are the only ones saving people from the compression world!
Click to expand...

I agree with both
 
I personally always record with 24bits. When I mixed down the song to a two track file it is also in 24bits. Its not until Ive done some mastering to the song that I use waves (l2) to dither it to 16bits and save it as a mp3 file.
 
jmxdrummer said:
I personally always record with 24bits. When I mixed down the song to a two track file it is also in 24bits. Its not until Ive done some mastering to the song that I use waves (l2) to dither it to 16bits and save it as a mp3 file.
Click to expand...

hahaha...everything was going all well until you mentioned an MP3 file. sorta defeats the purpose of worrying about the bit depth of the file if you're just going to ruin it all by storing it in an MP3 format, doesn't it?
Keep 'em as WAV if you're going to conver to 16 bit...otherwise leave them in 24 bit.
 
bennychico11 said:
Keep 'em as WAV if you're going to conver to 16 bit...otherwise leave them in 24 bit.
Click to expand...
What about on a mac, AIFF file?
 
WAV, AIFF, or SDII - makes no difference to the sound itself.

It only matters in terms of the ability of some other software to be able to read them.
 

Attachments

  • Bit sampling.webp
    Bit sampling.webp
    36.5 KB · Views: 89
COOLCAT said:
I thought this was a pretty good visual on the bit thing, for those that don't have oscilliscopes hooked up to their Digital Ready headphones. :p

http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/1010/2.html
Click to expand...
This visual representation is really really flawed.

First of all, with a 16bit signal, you have 15bits in either direction. One of the bits denotes + or -, the other 15 are the dynamic range. Same thing for all the bit depths, one bit for polarity, the rest for dynamic range.

The reconstructed files are also not a bunch of straight line connecting the dots. They are rounded just like the original signals (assuming the original signals are rounded).

These graphics were rendered by someone who doesn't know how digital audio works.
 
wow!!! those pictures look really cool!



so what am i looking at?
 
Well, after reading a lot of the posts I started converting a lot of the projects that I'm working on to 24bit. I am noticing a difference in the processing, I haven't had the chance to record in 24 bit yet though.

This has been a pretty educational thread, I really appreciate all of the input that you've all given.
 
bennychico11 said:
hahaha...everything was going all well until you mentioned an MP3 file. sorta defeats the purpose of worrying about the bit depth of the file if you're just going to ruin it all by storing it in an MP3 format, doesn't it?
Keep 'em as WAV if you're going to conver to 16 bit...otherwise leave them in 24 bit.
Click to expand...

sorry about bringing up the dreaded mp3 hahaha! The music I compose I leave it in 24 bit format, but all the bands that come in to record all want there mp3's

if all possible leave it in 24 bit wav.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top