can great recordings be made using 16 bit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimistone
  • Start date Start date
Kendog said:
>I'll agree that it's not as important with his style, but it certainly does contribute. He uses a decent amount of real instruments, and his vocals do sound great.

Not arguing, mind you, I just think it's a little more important than you do.[/url]
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't he sound better at 24bit? ;)
 
TexRoadkill said:


Then wouldn't he sound better at 24bit? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, that's the whole debate, then, isn't it? According to about half of the recording community (and Steve King), "dumbing" the result down to 16-bit effectively eliminates any benefits of recording at 24, 32 or 1 billion.

I'm not arguing the proven fact that 24 (and 32) sound better than 16 during the process, and this is an absolute must if mixing for higher res DVDs and such, but the jury still hasn't completely made up its mind as to whether it makes a difference when eventually ending up at 16 for a CD.

I was just adding to the pot the observation that one engineer pretty high up in the chain told me that he ALWAYS stays at 16/44.1 - and not just on Eminem's stuff. He's recorded plenty of other material - including live instrument gospel music.

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com
 
Why not pull out a few of your commercially-produced store-bought CD's, listen to a song off each of them, and sort them into two piles: those originally recorded in 16-bit, and those originally recorded in 24...... -If you can't tell the difference by ear, then ....... it doesn't matter. Don't worry about it.
~
An improvement that isn't apparent in the end product hardly seems an improvment.
 
thanks littledog. plus some good tapes add warmth and good sounds. hell, alot of big studios use them to record,to get a nice tape warm sound and then they load it onto protools.

listen to paul mcCartney's new album, "driving rain"

go to www.paulmccartney.com

all of these songs where made with tape then loaded into logic software.


good luck
 
Kendog said:


Well, that's the whole debate, then, isn't it? According to about half of the recording community (and Steve King), "dumbing" the result down to 16-bit effectively eliminates any benefits of recording at 24, 32 or 1 billion.
Click to expand...

Hi Ken!

We must be hanging out with different recording communities!:D

I personally hadn't heard anyone deny the benefits of recording and mixing at 24 bits and dithering down to 16 bit only at the mastering stage. Without getting into all the reasons now, (reasons that I find both overwhelming and compelling), it's my personal experience that the final results show better stereo imaging, smoother decays to silence, and better transient detail.

But my opinion hardly matters. The "proof" of the pudding, as far as I'm concerned, is to ask the mastering engineers what format they would prefer. In my experience, from Bob Ludwig on down, I have yet to meet a mastering engineer who would not emphatically prefer to receive the stereo mixes in 24 bit format, given a choice between the two and everything else being the same. If you've found mastering engineers who disagree, then we are definitely traveling in different circles! ;)
 
I hear ya, sisterfriend. And all that being said, I still mix in 32-bit float and 48k and dumb down to 16/44.1 as the final step.

I'm just trying to see what the "real world" says about it. I thought it was very interesting that Em's guy keeps everything so low.

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com
 
just my bit

I have an uncle who's got a studio.
He records everthing 16 bit. He says
he's still satisfied. I heared his recordings
on commercially released CD's. They do sound
like "studio" recordings. Maybe not great but
pro quality. He uses the an old Yamaha card worth
about $700.
 
I would agree with most of the people here that the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit audio is usually difficult to hear, but there is another side to this debate that no one has mentioned yet: the mathematical side. As you all should know, digital audio is made up of two elements, sample rate and quantization, where sample rate is the time element and quantization is the amplitude element. Also, you all should know that the bit word of a digital audio is the mathematical means by which a series of amplitudes is encoded; each instantaneous voltage is assigned a binary value in the form [x1, x2, x3, ... , xn] where the values of x are obviously either 0 or 1 and n is equal to the bit depth. Now, simple combinatorics will reveal the total number of possible amplitudes is equal to 2^n. By this formula, there are 65,536 different possible amplitudes in a 16 bit audio signal. By comparison, a 24 bit audio signal contains 16,777,216 possible amplitudes; this is 256 times the ammount of 16 bit. Now what does all of this mean to our ears? Dynamic range! It is a valid statment that 24 bit audio has 256 times greater dynamic range than 16 bit audio. While this may not be worth anything when faced with the task of recording an Eminem album, it can certainly come into play when recording more subltle acoustic material such as Jazz. Another aspect to considrer is the fact that DSP will be carried out more accurately on a 24 bit signal than it would be on 1 16 bit signal, which is likely why mastering engineers prefer the 24 bit format. My advice would be to let the source material be the deciding factor when debating 16 vs 24.
 
Zeke, digital recording is approaching top end reel to reel recording,
however, it's not there yet! Virtually all mastering engineers will agree.

The main advantage of 24 bit will be the increased headroom,
making initial tracking with compression less important.
The noise floor of most home studios causes them to be unable to
take advantage of the increased dynamic range and lower S/N ratio BTW.

Chris

P.S. "Hourglass" by James Taylot was recorded on a 16 bit ADAT!
(Won a grammy for production)
 
DMFrench - Here's the question of the day, and I think you're a great person to answer it since you seem to have a great grasp of the mathematical side of things. Certainly, none of us will dispute the fact the 24-bit sounds better than 16 compared side-by-side, but the question becomes this... Mathematically, what happens to the increased dynamic range and better resolution when dithering down to 16 for CD?

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com
 
I think as far as multi tracking goes, it's a cumlative affect. Track at 24 bit, stay there till it's mastered then dither down to 16 bit. The higher resolution during the tracking will give a better end product at 16 bits vs 16 bit all the way through. Just my humble opinion.
 
thanks for all the replies guys,
im pretty satisfied with the results im getting when tracking in 16 bit mode, and to tell you the truth i haven't even tried recording in the 24 bit mode. I have read articles by mastering engineers that bacically echo what track rat said....that when you track in 24 bit and mix in 24 bit you have a higher resolution recording that with be higher fidelity when dithering down to 16 bit. Also, i was wondering if you have a little more elbow room when mixing (another words with the higher sampling rate maybe the mix would not have to be quite as precise to translate well).

im going to try tracking with 24 bit and see for myself

i like everyone else agree that 24 bit is better.....i was just wondering if it was enough of a difference to warrant sacrificing half your tracks.

im still working on my home studio and my recorder is in storage right now...so im trying to find out from the guys here a HR that have made a similar decision of whether to record in 16 bit and use 16 tracks or to record in 24 bit and use 8 tracks.
 
just wanted to add this....i agree that a high end reel to reel format seems to have a smoother tone with less edge and a rounder sound overall. digital has no tape hiss....but if the noise floor in your studio is too high you won't really get that benifit of digital.

I have mixed to cassette and then put that mix on the hard drive and gotten real good results. maybe thats biting off your nose to spite your face....but it sounds good!

i tried that after reading an article about a bass player that did an album and wasn't satisfied with the final recordings. he went to tape with it...then went back to digital and itsounded like he wanted it to, and alot of engineers and artist were wondering how he got that wonderful sound with the album. I know cassette is not on par with a high end reel to reel machine sound wise (especially the bottom end)...but i just tried it out on cassette and after that i can see what he was talking about.

maybe that destroys my credibility as a home recoring engineer but I will be the first one to say that i don't know shit....so...didn't really have any credibility to start with
:D
 
eminem is a terrible mainstream rapper, and his music is terrible. Selling out never helped anyone, at least with hip hop. It always gets worse. I hear he "USED" to be ok, like a long time ago. But i refuse to beleive it.
 
I still think that LedZeppland is a cool idea. We have some land outside of town. all we need now is to get a carnival company to come and then kill all the Carneys (nobodys going to miss them). and all led zepplin tribute bands every day.


Whos in?
 
What is the advantage of using 24bit even though the end result is 16bit?

Thats why we dither when converting word length. Dithering can actually help retain a higher perceived dynamic range then recording in 16bit from the get go.

If you track in 24bit and use Dither or Noise Shaping your 16bit mixdown can have a dynamic range that is comparable to 18 or 20 bits. This means a lower noise floor and a cleaner sound. This advantage is lost if you track in 16bit.

It is always good practice to use a higher quality master format then the current distrobution format.
 
Kendog said:
Still looking for an absolute, mathematical answer...

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Are all of the benefits of tracking at 24 lost when converting to 16?

Ken Rutkowski
www.OuterLimitRecordingStudio.com
Click to expand...

Hi Ken.

It's like Tex said, it's all about understanding the principle of dithering. Dithering can be a little complex to explain, especially if you want technical details, but there have been a myriad of great articles written about it in the various magazines as well as some threads that go into excellent detail.

I suggest trying a search here and at the other usual forums rather than rehash the whole discussion. Then if you have some specific questions about the process, ask them again over here.

The practical result, as Tex said, is that keeping the project at 24 bits throughout the tracking and mixing stages and only dithering to 16 bits at the final mastering stage usually gives a noticeably superior result.

Among other reasons, quantization (rounding) errors are far fewer this way.
 
A colon and the capital letter "D"....
:D
-if you mean this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top