SPINSTERWUN
Active member
This is why I always track @ 24bit, then dither down to 16bit.TexRoadkill said:
mastahnke
Linux Man...
I'm in for the theme park. I think there could be many great rides.
Communication Breakdown, where it puts you in this world where cell phones and pagers don't work...ahhh.
Immigrant song -- the ride puts you on a raft from cuba trying to make it into the us without being eaten by sharks and you of course have to drink your own urine.
Going to California --really boring ride until about halfway and there are some mountains, then repeat boring.
Dazed and Confused --contact buzz
All of my Love -- hmm maybe not such a good idea
--MIKE (really worthless...I know)
Communication Breakdown, where it puts you in this world where cell phones and pagers don't work...ahhh.
Immigrant song -- the ride puts you on a raft from cuba trying to make it into the us without being eaten by sharks and you of course have to drink your own urine.
Going to California --really boring ride until about halfway and there are some mountains, then repeat boring.
Dazed and Confused --contact buzz
All of my Love -- hmm maybe not such a good idea
--MIKE (really worthless...I know)
I
inhousejohn
New member
yes they can
16 bit is cd quality. The higher up you go makes no difference. when you put it on cd 16 is the standard.
16 bit is cd quality. The higher up you go makes no difference. when you put it on cd 16 is the standard.
I
inhousejohn
New member
yes they can
16 bit is cd quality. The higher up you go makes no difference. when you put it on cd 16 is the standard.
16 bit is cd quality. The higher up you go makes no difference. when you put it on cd 16 is the standard.
darrin_h2000
Banned
24/96 is the standard for DVDs so in a few years you will change your mind.
Hows about a water ride based on "When the Levey Breaks"Or "The Ocean" wave pool.
And dont forget the rides on the Live in Love in Maid.
Hows about a water ride based on "When the Levey Breaks"Or "The Ocean" wave pool.
And dont forget the rides on the Live in Love in Maid.
Bass Master "K"
New member
Re: yes they can
This just is not correct john. I have tracked in 16, 24 and 32 bit floating and there IS a difference. Just because the final medium is a 44.1/16 bit medium doesn't mean that you can't get a better product by tracking and mixing and mastering at a higher rate and dithering down at the end. That is what is so great about a good dithering program!
The higher bit rate means you have more info being recorded than at a lower bitrate. Better frequency response, better clarity. Okay, so now that you have this better sounding material, when you have to dither it down to 16 bit doesn't that just make it the same as if you had recorded in 16 bit in the first place?? The answer is a resounding "NO!". The genious of dithering is that when it converts the audio to a 16 bit format, the program actually cuts out some of the frequencies that are too low for the human ear to pick up, leaves the great sounding material intact and adds a (for lack of a better word) "white noise" (there is an official name for it, I just don't know it off the top of my head) back at a frequency level that we can't hear. This leaves you with a better overall sound to the material. This is a TOTALLY brief and simplified explanation, but I hope it gets the idea across. You can search for a more technical explanation but the answer will remain the same.
Does this mean that great recordings weren't made with 16 bit? Of course not...
Does it mean that you can sit and listen to a CD and say "ohhh..this one was definately 16 bit, that one 24"?
Of course not...engineering and mastering has a much bigger overall effect on the final output than the bitrate resolution. Hell, I'd bet Tool's engineer's could put out a better product on my buddy's BR-8 than I could using their whole studio (but I'm learning )
But does it mean that if you have the option to record in a higher resolution and you have a good dithering program should you take advantage of it? Choice is up to you but I think so. I hear the difference and that is good enough for me.
Now if you really want to get into a heated debate ask about the what is better: recording at 96khz, 88.2 khz, 48 khz, vs. 44.1 and the conversion process that must be done with resolutions higher than 44.1? Man, I have read some all out battles between people with credentials who have differing opinions on this. If anyone ever finds out the final answer please let me know
inhousejohn said:
This just is not correct john. I have tracked in 16, 24 and 32 bit floating and there IS a difference. Just because the final medium is a 44.1/16 bit medium doesn't mean that you can't get a better product by tracking and mixing and mastering at a higher rate and dithering down at the end. That is what is so great about a good dithering program!
The higher bit rate means you have more info being recorded than at a lower bitrate. Better frequency response, better clarity. Okay, so now that you have this better sounding material, when you have to dither it down to 16 bit doesn't that just make it the same as if you had recorded in 16 bit in the first place?? The answer is a resounding "NO!". The genious of dithering is that when it converts the audio to a 16 bit format, the program actually cuts out some of the frequencies that are too low for the human ear to pick up, leaves the great sounding material intact and adds a (for lack of a better word) "white noise" (there is an official name for it, I just don't know it off the top of my head) back at a frequency level that we can't hear. This leaves you with a better overall sound to the material. This is a TOTALLY brief and simplified explanation, but I hope it gets the idea across. You can search for a more technical explanation but the answer will remain the same.
Does this mean that great recordings weren't made with 16 bit? Of course not...
Does it mean that you can sit and listen to a CD and say "ohhh..this one was definately 16 bit, that one 24"?
Of course not...engineering and mastering has a much bigger overall effect on the final output than the bitrate resolution. Hell, I'd bet Tool's engineer's could put out a better product on my buddy's BR-8 than I could using their whole studio (but I'm learning
)But does it mean that if you have the option to record in a higher resolution and you have a good dithering program should you take advantage of it? Choice is up to you but I think so. I hear the difference and that is good enough for me.
Now if you really want to get into a heated debate ask about the what is better: recording at 96khz, 88.2 khz, 48 khz, vs. 44.1 and the conversion process that must be done with resolutions higher than 44.1? Man, I have read some all out battles between people with credentials who have differing opinions on this. If anyone ever finds out the final answer please let me know
J
javalizard
New member
24 bit
I too do not think the jury is out on 24-bit recordings dithered to 16-bit. I have a home studio and have recorded songs in both formats to compare side by side. The difference for me is quite striking....Even when dithered and mixed to 16 bit. The highs are more detailed and articulate, more transparency and like the other gentlemen said, I think most importantly, there is something much more complete about the stereo image. Ill take the Pepsi challange anyday....Oversampling technically provides less errors so it is not surprising that it will sound better when mixed down. IT DOES MATTER...TRUST ME
HOWEVER, this, I agree, is an audiophile thing....if you are doing a recording for a local band, etc. the layperson would NEVER notice a difference in the formats. 90% of musicans probably wont either. I think the extra tracks will give you a better recording than the extra bit depth will provide.
Doug
I too do not think the jury is out on 24-bit recordings dithered to 16-bit. I have a home studio and have recorded songs in both formats to compare side by side. The difference for me is quite striking....Even when dithered and mixed to 16 bit. The highs are more detailed and articulate, more transparency and like the other gentlemen said, I think most importantly, there is something much more complete about the stereo image. Ill take the Pepsi challange anyday....Oversampling technically provides less errors so it is not surprising that it will sound better when mixed down. IT DOES MATTER...TRUST ME
HOWEVER, this, I agree, is an audiophile thing....if you are doing a recording for a local band, etc. the layperson would NEVER notice a difference in the formats. 90% of musicans probably wont either. I think the extra tracks will give you a better recording than the extra bit depth will provide.
Doug
V
volltreffer
Imply depressed
High !
When you wanna understand dithering, take a look at a colour picture from an inkjet. Coloured spots in RANDOM order placed in a way that the average colour fits the colour that shall be printed. This makes you percive a much higher colour depth than there is in reality. If you still remeber the older printer drivers, some had the possibilities of using fixed patterns for colours - but you would see a lot of artefacts.
So, while there are lots of reasons to work in a high resolution in amplitude (= bit depth) and frequency (e.g. double sampling gives you much nicer EQ algorithms), I think (and hope and pray - I got a Roland VS880 and 1680...) that great recordings CAN be made with 16bit/44.1k. I'm quite sure that the first digital recordings were often done on 16 bit, and there are great recordings. The more natural you want your sounds, the more likely will higher bit depth and frequency lead to higher quality.
The tracking will be much easier anyway, as you don't need to compress...
Ciao
Axel
When you wanna understand dithering, take a look at a colour picture from an inkjet. Coloured spots in RANDOM order placed in a way that the average colour fits the colour that shall be printed. This makes you percive a much higher colour depth than there is in reality. If you still remeber the older printer drivers, some had the possibilities of using fixed patterns for colours - but you would see a lot of artefacts.
So, while there are lots of reasons to work in a high resolution in amplitude (= bit depth) and frequency (e.g. double sampling gives you much nicer EQ algorithms), I think (and hope and pray - I got a Roland VS880 and 1680...) that great recordings CAN be made with 16bit/44.1k. I'm quite sure that the first digital recordings were often done on 16 bit, and there are great recordings. The more natural you want your sounds, the more likely will higher bit depth and frequency lead to higher quality.
The tracking will be much easier anyway, as you don't need to compress...
Ciao
Axel