Advice on Bit Depth for recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrick108
  • Start date Start date
Ya, but what good is lower floor noise if the recording doesn't sound "superb" as is characterized in the old SOS reviews. 1995 16-bit doesn't automatically suck. One had the option of going for something that sounds good. I don't buy into SOS all that much, but I think they have to be careful when the graduate from very good to excellent to superb. So, with a modern Tascam do we look for very good, or, what ?
 
My diagnosis is that he came from the roland vs-1880, which has really think, bright, even shrill preamps, to the Tascam which has cheap, yet 3 generations newer, electronics and he is missing the brightness that should have never been there in the first place. He thinks there is something wrong with the new stuff, because he is used to the old.

Unfortunately, in order to get the same I/O in the "superb" category, he will need to spend nearly 20 times what the Tascam's cost him. I am assuming that isn't realistic.

Your suggestions for audiophile home stereo equipment, two channel interfaces from 10 years ago and 8 channel tape decks from 20 years ago entirely miss the point of the op's question and situation. (Never mind the philosophical ramblings about what sounds good now vs. future, ancient stereo power amps, and the stuff you have in your collection that sounds great, but isn't plugged in)
 
My 8-channel Layla 3g is 10-years ago. It mustered a "very good" from SOS.

I'm saying to Patrick (whose name I haven't forgot), to think of the possible upgrade to something that sounds good . The implication is that it's $1000 + (and retail discounted) and not just buying a makeover of the same low-mid level borderland. All channels, most likely, don't have to be the same quality - you can get a good eight and stack on a ada8000 for the drummer. I didn't say buy something old, I said buy something that sounds good.
 
I'm sure he would have never thought of buying something that sounds good. That's great advice!
 
Hi Guys:
Thank you for all your comments and advice. I read them all. I have also talked earlier today with two guys from two different music equipment stores and after describing the Tascam 16X08's shortcomings, one suggested PreSonus Audiobox 1818VSL 18-Channel USB Interface. His point that many of his co-workers were recording with Presonus and were happy with it. The other guy suggested:
Roland UA-1610 Studio-Capture USB 2.0 Audio Interface. The description is below:
With 16 inputs and 10 outputs -- including 12 XLR microphone preamps -- this Roland USB interface has all the I/O you need for serious multitrack recording.
i have also heard about Focusrite. Any comments, suggestions, preferences with reasons? Just a reminder, my original dissatisfaction with Tascam was the lack of clear high frequency signals. Thanks.

Patrick
 
Actually I am not sure whether one can post different brands of interfaces BY NAME on this site. This might lend itself to free advertizing for the gear, but if it is okay to do that , then please comment on the Roland UA 1610, and the Presonus also. Thanks.

Patrick
 
Noise comes from things like AC units, 60 cycle hum, tape hiss, bagpipes.

A wah wah solo.

What does word length have to do with manipulating that?

What is it about 16 bit that is inherently noisier than 24 bit?
 
snow lizard said:
Noise comes from things like AC units, 60 cycle hum, tape hiss, bagpipes.

A wah wah solo.

What does word length have to do with manipulating that?

What is it about 16 bit that is inherently noisier than 24 bit?
Click to expand...
Yeah, It applies [only] to the capture- record/mixing/playback processes. True it's not effecting your source's relative sig-to noise content.

'bagpipes' :D
Flashing on our acoustic band's regular gig playing at the 'farmer's market.
There's a bagpipe player that hangs' not too far off occasionally..
Oh and the 'toy balloon lady.. Enough with the pops'?
 
It's amazing what you can see at the farmers market sometimes....
 
The digital noise floor. With 16 bit, the digital noise floor is -96 dbfs, with 24 bit the digital noise floor is -144 dbfs.

Because the noise floor is so much lower, you can record at lower levels and when that the tracks get summed together, it doesn't add up to as much.
 
snow lizard said:
Noise comes from things like AC units, 60 cycle hum, tape hiss, bagpipes.

A wah wah solo.

What does word length have to do with manipulating that?

What is it about 16 bit that is inherently noisier than 24 bit?
Click to expand...

Each bit represents 6dB of level difference. When the signal is about as low as the lowest bit it can't be represented accurately (though dithering helps). That inaccuracy is the noise. More bits means a bigger window between the highest and lowest levels.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Each bit represents 6dB of level difference.
Click to expand...

Yup.

When the signal is about as low as the lowest bit it can't be represented accurately (though dithering helps).
Click to expand...

So when the signal can't be represented accurately it gets quantized up to the closest available level. This is called quantization error.

That inaccuracy is the noise.
Click to expand...

Sort of. That inaccuracy makes an ugly form of harmonic distortion. Dither is noise. It would be intuitive to think that dither is masking the harmonics, but it actually removes them. Harmonic distortion sings in tune with the signal so it's correlated and can have farther reaching effects than the very low signal levels we're talking about here. (given a "superb" or at least "very good" recording and monitor chain) Broadband noise like dither is not correlated to the signal and kills the harmonics. It seems counterintuitive, but adding noise in the form of dither results in a cleaner signal.

Not so important with 24 bit because low level quantization errors approaching -144 dBfs are outside of the range of the system.

More bits means a bigger window between the highest and lowest levels.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding of it as well. To put it another way, more bits means higher resolution.

What I'm not clear on is the noise floor being the LSB of the system. For example if you plug in a mixing board that makes self noise at -80 dBfs at the main outputs, word length won't change that. The noise floor is the sum of everything in the system that makes noise.
 
I meant the digital noise floor, not the noise floor flor the system, room, mics, air-con, earth hum, etc...

24 bit doesn't really give you more resolution, just more dynamic range with which to put you signal. The inherent noise floor of your signal is what it is and will reside within that 144 dbfs of dynamic range.
 
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this Jay.

What you call "digital noise floor" is what I call "range".

24 bits is higher resolution than 16 bits. That's the way it works with graphics and audio is the same. That's not to say that 16 bit can't be made to sound very good. Perhaps an old, obsolete 16 bit converter that was made with medical/military/industrial grade transformer coupled electronics designed to keep everything phase coherent could sound better than a cheap, "modern" 24 bit consumer level converter.

To the OP's question, I agree that if he's hearing a difference in frequency between different recorders it has to do with something other than bit depth.
 
Well, I think he has two recorders - the Roland and the computer. By habit, I'd try to find out if the Roland just has "colored" analog out, etc.., or, is the digital file actually "colored", or, is it just the A/D conversion... hahaha
Not unlike troubleshooting a circuit - oh it is a circuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top