Calling all masters of digital domain...
- Thread starter James Argo
- Start date
Recording Engineer
Moderator
James,
If your tracks are 16-bit, 44.1k, you gain nothing by going to any higher bit-depth as you will simply be adding "zeros".
I highly doubt you'll gain anything by resampling to 96k... In fact, I'm pretty sure you will be degrading the quality by doing that!
What you need to do is simply mix the tracks and use any plug-ins you'd like... By using ANY processing, you will gain bits at EVERY processing stage, and FAR beyond whole numbers. Make certain that the program you use isn't setup to automatically truncate or dither the resulting 2-tracks.
Once you have the resulting 2-tracks, editing (anything other than cut and paste in editing is "processing" also) and mastering will be done. Again, ANY processing done at this stage, you will even further gain bits. Once you're absolutely sure you're finished, the last thing you do before sending it off for a glass master to be created or duplication, is dither to 16-bit. You can use a noise-shaping scheme to the reduce effects dithering.
Of course, if you're having it mastered (which I recommend), you don't worry about the dithering. Just make sure dithering or truncating is NOT happening automatically when you're mixing to 2-tracks.
If your tracks are 16-bit, 44.1k, you gain nothing by going to any higher bit-depth as you will simply be adding "zeros".
I highly doubt you'll gain anything by resampling to 96k... In fact, I'm pretty sure you will be degrading the quality by doing that!
What you need to do is simply mix the tracks and use any plug-ins you'd like... By using ANY processing, you will gain bits at EVERY processing stage, and FAR beyond whole numbers. Make certain that the program you use isn't setup to automatically truncate or dither the resulting 2-tracks.
Once you have the resulting 2-tracks, editing (anything other than cut and paste in editing is "processing" also) and mastering will be done. Again, ANY processing done at this stage, you will even further gain bits. Once you're absolutely sure you're finished, the last thing you do before sending it off for a glass master to be created or duplication, is dither to 16-bit. You can use a noise-shaping scheme to the reduce effects dithering.
Of course, if you're having it mastered (which I recommend), you don't worry about the dithering. Just make sure dithering or truncating is NOT happening automatically when you're mixing to 2-tracks.
dachay2tnr
One Hit Wonder
RE - many software programs process at 32 bit float and dither back to the original bit rate after the material is processed. Something you have no control over.
You are correct that increasing the bit rate from 16 to 24 bits will do nothing but add zero's - initially. However, after the material has been processed, those zero's will become populated with actual numbers. As such, there very well could be a benefit.
I do agree with you that there is no benefit to changing the sample rate.
You are correct that increasing the bit rate from 16 to 24 bits will do nothing but add zero's - initially. However, after the material has been processed, those zero's will become populated with actual numbers. As such, there very well could be a benefit.
I do agree with you that there is no benefit to changing the sample rate.
crosstudio
New member
i second that emotion.
adding bits before doing processing is not a harm it is a good thing. SEKD Samplitude Master does the 24-bit to 32-bit thing.
i record in 48khz/24bit and samplitude master dithers to 44.1/16 when burning the CD (after all mastering is done). i realize that re-sampling from 48 to 44.1 is costing me a little something, but i believe that i'm losing less than what i'd lose by recording at 44.1
having said that,
i certainly wouldn't record in 44.1, mix in 48, then master to 44.1 again. too much re-sampling going on.
adding bits before doing processing is not a harm it is a good thing. SEKD Samplitude Master does the 24-bit to 32-bit thing.
i record in 48khz/24bit and samplitude master dithers to 44.1/16 when burning the CD (after all mastering is done). i realize that re-sampling from 48 to 44.1 is costing me a little something, but i believe that i'm losing less than what i'd lose by recording at 44.1
having said that,
i certainly wouldn't record in 44.1, mix in 48, then master to 44.1 again. too much re-sampling going on.
sonusman
Banned
Okay, quiz time!
I have a lot of mp3's up now, so you all can take a listen to some things.
1 - Here are three songs. One was tracked at 16 bits, one at 20 bits, and one at 24. Share which one is which.
a)
b)
c)
2 - Here are two songs. One was tracked at 44.1KHz sampling rate, and the other was tracked at 48KHz sampling rate. Share which one is which.
a)
b)
I will not comment on anything else until we have a few answers here.
Ed
I have a lot of mp3's up now, so you all can take a listen to some things.
1 - Here are three songs. One was tracked at 16 bits, one at 20 bits, and one at 24. Share which one is which.
a)
b)
c)
2 - Here are two songs. One was tracked at 44.1KHz sampling rate, and the other was tracked at 48KHz sampling rate. Share which one is which.
a)
b)
I will not comment on anything else until we have a few answers here.
Ed
dachay2tnr
One Hit Wonder
Sorry, Ed. Five files of 6+ meg ea. won't cut it on dial-up. However, I'll be interested to see the results.
Unfortunately, these tests are always difficult with .mp3's. You never know how much is a result of encoding.
Unfortunately, these tests are always difficult with .mp3's. You never know how much is a result of encoding.
sonusman
Banned
dachay2tnr - Are you saying that a couple hours of downloading isn't worth learning something? Plus, you get to hear some cool music too. Be a sport. MP3's are suitable enough for this.
moskus - After you listen to these, then read what I have to say, you will see that all of them being the same song doesn't really make all that much difference.
Ed
moskus - After you listen to these, then read what I have to say, you will see that all of them being the same song doesn't really make all that much difference.
Ed
sonusman
Banned
That is better! Thanks guys. 
Neoplitan - 16 bit Black Face TypeI ADAT's.
Unheald - 20 bit ADAT XT.
Secret Heart - 16 bit ADAT's again.
Oops, was tired last night and didn't post a 24 bit recording. Oh well. It actually helps the cause.
You guys certainly got the sample rate one's correct.
So now, tell me guys, which is more important? Increased bit depth or higher sampling rates?
THAT is not an easy answer.
Even through Unheald was recorded at a higher bit depth than the other two, it was mixed on a digital console. The other two were on a analog console.
Worm was mixed on a digital console, Toothache was mixed in Sonar.
Where am I going with this? Hell, I am not even sure, except to say that it is usually more obvious to the average Joe the difference in sample rates than bit depth! I have "secretly" tested this on clients time and time again. I also trust female ears a LOT when it comes to frequency response, and women ALWAYS hear the difference in sampling rate. Lower rates usually get the response that the audio sounds more "harsh".
Worm was the only 24 bit recording of the bunch (true 24 bit..meaning, Toothache was 24 bit, but used 16 bit 44.1 drum samples, and a JStation for the guitar/bass using the S/PDIF output...it says 24 bit converters, but I have reasons to believe that the JStation isn't more than 20 bit at best!)
Worm has the lowest perceived resolution of the whole lot! Why? It went through MANY more steps of digital hocus pocus. Sonar editing. Sound replacing. Digital mixing. Etc....
Neopolitan to my ears has the most resolution of the lot. That was 16 bit ADAT's to a Soundcraft Ghost using Behringer Composers and Alesis 3630's for dynamics. I have another song from that CD that is a more delicate "jazz" tune on it where you can hear subtle brush's on the drums and it explodes to a huge chorus part. MAN!!! Is it a dynamic song. Preserved VERY well on a 16 bit recording.
I hear all this talk about how 24 bit has a much lower "noise floor". Cool. In theory, it certainly does! But you know, check the noise floor of your average preamp. Times that by how many tracks you have running at once. Oops, there goes your nice low noise floor!
Okay, everybody flunked the bit depth test. I am going to see what I can do about getting a better sampling rate test going here. It is my opinion that I benefit FAR more from increased sampling rates than I do from increased bit depth. Time and time again, increased sampling rates are far more obvious to me and everybody else than increased bit depth, yet, the average advice posted on BBS's suggests the opposit! A lot of techno mumbo jumbo that is only half right get's thrown around about increased bit depth and everybody discounts increased increased sampling rate in a hurry, yet, time and time again, increased sampling rates seem to be a more obvious improvement to the audio than increased bit depth does!
Okay guys, don't get going on this whole "well, 24 bit's is better if you are going to apply DSP" thing. I agree wholly with that. But I tell you, the difference is NOT going to be as obvious as the difference between 44.1 and 48, or for that matter 96KHz sampling rates!!!
I will see what I can do to make a better sampling rate test here and see how you all fair. I doubt many are going to flunk this one like you all did the bit depth test.
Ed
Neoplitan - 16 bit Black Face TypeI ADAT's.
Unheald - 20 bit ADAT XT.
Secret Heart - 16 bit ADAT's again.
Oops, was tired last night and didn't post a 24 bit recording. Oh well.
It actually helps the cause.You guys certainly got the sample rate one's correct.
So now, tell me guys, which is more important? Increased bit depth or higher sampling rates?
THAT is not an easy answer.
Even through Unheald was recorded at a higher bit depth than the other two, it was mixed on a digital console. The other two were on a analog console.
Worm was mixed on a digital console, Toothache was mixed in Sonar.
Where am I going with this? Hell, I am not even sure, except to say that it is usually more obvious to the average Joe the difference in sample rates than bit depth! I have "secretly" tested this on clients time and time again. I also trust female ears a LOT when it comes to frequency response, and women ALWAYS hear the difference in sampling rate. Lower rates usually get the response that the audio sounds more "harsh".
Worm was the only 24 bit recording of the bunch (true 24 bit..meaning, Toothache was 24 bit, but used 16 bit 44.1 drum samples, and a JStation for the guitar/bass using the S/PDIF output...it says 24 bit converters, but I have reasons to believe that the JStation isn't more than 20 bit at best!)
Worm has the lowest perceived resolution of the whole lot! Why? It went through MANY more steps of digital hocus pocus. Sonar editing. Sound replacing. Digital mixing. Etc....
Neopolitan to my ears has the most resolution of the lot. That was 16 bit ADAT's to a Soundcraft Ghost using Behringer Composers and Alesis 3630's for dynamics. I have another song from that CD that is a more delicate "jazz" tune on it where you can hear subtle brush's on the drums and it explodes to a huge chorus part. MAN!!! Is it a dynamic song. Preserved VERY well on a 16 bit recording.
I hear all this talk about how 24 bit has a much lower "noise floor". Cool. In theory, it certainly does! But you know, check the noise floor of your average preamp. Times that by how many tracks you have running at once. Oops, there goes your nice low noise floor!
Okay, everybody flunked the bit depth test. I am going to see what I can do about getting a better sampling rate test going here. It is my opinion that I benefit FAR more from increased sampling rates than I do from increased bit depth. Time and time again, increased sampling rates are far more obvious to me and everybody else than increased bit depth, yet, the average advice posted on BBS's suggests the opposit! A lot of techno mumbo jumbo that is only half right get's thrown around about increased bit depth and everybody discounts increased increased sampling rate in a hurry, yet, time and time again, increased sampling rates seem to be a more obvious improvement to the audio than increased bit depth does!
Okay guys, don't get going on this whole "well, 24 bit's is better if you are going to apply DSP" thing. I agree wholly with that. But I tell you, the difference is NOT going to be as obvious as the difference between 44.1 and 48, or for that matter 96KHz sampling rates!!!
I will see what I can do to make a better sampling rate test here and see how you all fair. I doubt many are going to flunk this one like you all did the bit depth test.
Ed
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
well now this is tricky
the cynic in me says according to the 6dB for bit principle Neopolitan and Unhealed could have been done with 3 bits while Secret heart requires 4 bits
owing to what seems to be ADAT ADC's its a little hard to hear the cymbals ring out to diddly, but "unhealed" has a few in the background that seem NOT to have disappeared from the masking effect of the mp3 conversion...that usually means a lower bitrate and/or dynamic range beforee the mp3 encoding
seems like 24 bit mixes have an easier time to loose background stuff when making an mp3...what does this mean to the price of beans in china? I dont know
the cynic in me says according to the 6dB for bit principle Neopolitan and Unhealed could have been done with 3 bits while Secret heart requires 4 bits
owing to what seems to be ADAT ADC's its a little hard to hear the cymbals ring out to diddly, but "unhealed" has a few in the background that seem NOT to have disappeared from the masking effect of the mp3 conversion...that usually means a lower bitrate and/or dynamic range beforee the mp3 encoding
seems like 24 bit mixes have an easier time to loose background stuff when making an mp3...what does this mean to the price of beans in china? I dont know
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
gack ok I see the results are posted and I was backwards on the 44 vs 48 test
in my defense neither of these mp3z represent what I would expect from a 32khz wave file damn mp3z
in my defense neither of these mp3z represent what I would expect from a 32khz wave file
damn mp3z
moskus
The Creator of Æ, Ø and Å
Nice one, Sonusman! I learned something!
Just one thought, though... I can hear the difference between the new Dark Side of the Moon played from a 24/44.1-system and a 16/44.1 system (a co-worker set up the "test" for me at my stereo). It was actually a HUGE difference. (The difference between 24/44.1 and 24/96 wasn't that clear to me. I could hear a difference, but didn't have that "Wow!"-experience.)
Will this difference be just as clear with MP3's?
Just one thought, though... I can hear the difference between the new Dark Side of the Moon played from a 24/44.1-system and a 16/44.1 system (a co-worker set up the "test" for me at my stereo). It was actually a HUGE difference. (The difference between 24/44.1 and 24/96 wasn't that clear to me. I could hear a difference, but didn't have that "Wow!"-experience.)
Will this difference be just as clear with MP3's?
