Blue Bear Sound
New member
We're talking about an analogy here, to illustrate the difference.......... barefoot's example is EXCELLENT!heinz said:
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Yes, but basic principle of higher bit depth processing resulting in better detail in the final product still holds.heinz said:
And you can’t argue that there is no difference in my audio examples. They clearly demonstrate the principle. The only question is whether that difference is actually audible in the 16 bit versus 24 bit case. Well, you need a good monitoring system to find out for yourself.
I’ll see what I can do about posting an example.
barefoot
L
LongWaveStudio
New member
24 bit is definitely a great deal better.
but, if you cant make a great sounding record on 16bit, then, 24 bit isn't going to make any miracles.
but, if you cant make a great sounding record on 16bit, then, 24 bit isn't going to make any miracles.
barefoot
barefootsound.com
Amen brother. 
Tom Hicks
Well-known member
I record at 24 bit 44.1K and dither to 16 bit 44.1K for burning CDs.I don't really need to compress at the front end with 24 bit.You have so much extra headroom that you can back off your input fader a touch to avoid any 0 dB problems and still have have great S/N on your files.
So I'm convinced of the superiority of recording at 24 bit over 16 bit.But what about all the guys recording at 96K?I'm not sure that there really is an advantage to recording all that sound above the range of human hearing.That is why I still record at 44.1K
So I'm convinced of the superiority of recording at 24 bit over 16 bit.But what about all the guys recording at 96K?I'm not sure that there really is an advantage to recording all that sound above the range of human hearing.That is why I still record at 44.1K
L
LongWaveStudio
New member
Tom,
there is a difference between say 48kHz and 96, but to be honest, it's not as obvious as say recording at 24bit as opposed to 16.
24/48k is a good resolution to record at. if you've got the equipment, and the facility, then, sure , go for 96, or 88.2, but, only as long as your source signal is excellent really. that's my opinion on it.
if you've got a great room, nice pre's , nice mics, etc, then 96/88.2 may work for you.
there is a difference between say 48kHz and 96, but to be honest, it's not as obvious as say recording at 24bit as opposed to 16.
24/48k is a good resolution to record at. if you've got the equipment, and the facility, then, sure , go for 96, or 88.2, but, only as long as your source signal is excellent really. that's my opinion on it.
if you've got a great room, nice pre's , nice mics, etc, then 96/88.2 may work for you.
heinz
New member
camn said:
wow I missed that part in physics class! (sorry not to be an ass or anything, just found the statement humorous that's all...)barefoot said:
Hey I didn't imply any sort of argument, just stated a fact. Certainly one can look at 24-bit graphics files vs. 16-bit, and compare that to the audio file equivalent and sho 'nuff there's clearly a technical analogy.
But to follow through with that analogy, it should be noted that the eye is radically more sensitive, and that music recorded in 16-bit is perfectly fine to most folks. But many more people pick up on the banding and dithering artifacts in 16-bit graphics vs. the smooth continuous tone of a 24-bit image.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
heinz said:
That's exactly the same with audio.
V
volltreffer
Imply depressed
High!
IMO, the major difference is just the headroom. I own a vs880EX, so I recorded everything in 16 bit. For me, it seemed almost impossible to record e.g. voices without a compressor before the machine. The times I did not, I always had problems with too low volume of the tracks resulting in a far lower track quality. I like quite a lot (some people may think too much) of compression on my voice, but nevertheless, I'd prefer to get it all done in the mix. Drums is a similar thing: I always have to track them a little too low, as I don't have enough compressor/limiter channels. Then it's much harder to get everything sound ok in the mix.
With 24 bit, I'd simply have the possibility of recording with the peak meter max at let's say -6 or even -12dB, thus be sure to avoid clipping and STILL be able to process the tracks in a way that the resolution would be really nice after being dithered down to 16 bit.
Just my 2c,
Axel
IMO, the major difference is just the headroom. I own a vs880EX, so I recorded everything in 16 bit. For me, it seemed almost impossible to record e.g. voices without a compressor before the machine. The times I did not, I always had problems with too low volume of the tracks resulting in a far lower track quality. I like quite a lot (some people may think too much) of compression on my voice, but nevertheless, I'd prefer to get it all done in the mix. Drums is a similar thing: I always have to track them a little too low, as I don't have enough compressor/limiter channels. Then it's much harder to get everything sound ok in the mix.
With 24 bit, I'd simply have the possibility of recording with the peak meter max at let's say -6 or even -12dB, thus be sure to avoid clipping and STILL be able to process the tracks in a way that the resolution would be really nice after being dithered down to 16 bit.
Just my 2c,
Axel
G
geekgurl
New member
camn said:
Well, I know that sound is a compression wave, but I didn't think light was one ... Actually, I last I heard physicists were still arguing over whether light was a particle or a wave ... Or maybe I was really stoned that day in class.
Anyway, I know it's off-topic but I couldn't resist pondering this ... I'm just out for my Sunday troll ...
jitteringjim
Insert Custom Title Here
Tom Hicks said:
Yeah, but try recording @ 96k - your dogs will love you for it.
knightfly
GrouchyOldFartOnBatteries
There's been a fair amount of discussion on several boards by everyone from amateurs to big name pros regarding the 44 vs 88 or 96k thing - If you could call anything a concensus, there seems to be sort of one that the difference between 44 and 88 or 96 is more noticeable (by those that notice it at all) when using less expensive converters. The theory propounded is that the more expensive converters tend to have better-designed filters. It is much harder for a filter to be designed to pass everything without attenuation up to 20 kHz, then suddenly chop it off by 22 kHz (for a 44.1 sample rate) than it is to design a filter that gently rolls off STARTING at maybe 25 kHz and is void of information by 88 kHz. This is one of the plssible reasons why well-designed (read expensive) converters don't get as many people claiming that they hear the difference between 44 and 88 as people using lower cost converters.
As I have yet to hear anything at the higher rates and won't probably until late fall, this is momentarily just for purposes of discussion. Personally. I am still skeptical of the Nyquist theorem, and not only because he wasn't the first to propose it... Steve
As I have yet to hear anything at the higher rates and won't probably until late fall, this is momentarily just for purposes of discussion. Personally. I am still skeptical of the Nyquist theorem, and not only because he wasn't the first to propose it... Steve
heinz
New member
TexRoadkill said:
Ummm dude.
Yes OF COURSE we all know that the parallel issues are there between graphics & audio in regards to 24-bit vs. 16-bit.
What my POINT was that the eye is much more sensitive, hence a normal person is much more likely to see the difference in graphics vs. hearing the difference in audio.
J
jpib7
New member
still confused 16 vs. 24 bit
Hi all,
I'm still a bit confused on this topic - partially because I'm a newbie. But...
I have a Korg D16 which can record in 16 (16 tracks) or 24 bit (8 tracks). Once I'm finished a song, I bounce the tracks and burn them to CDR. Since CDs are 16 bit quality, does it make a difference in the sound quality when burning to CDR? How can 24 bit sound be realized on 16 bit media?? Thanks for the advice and sorry if this is too basic...
Hi all,
I'm still a bit confused on this topic - partially because I'm a newbie. But...
I have a Korg D16 which can record in 16 (16 tracks) or 24 bit (8 tracks). Once I'm finished a song, I bounce the tracks and burn them to CDR. Since CDs are 16 bit quality, does it make a difference in the sound quality when burning to CDR? How can 24 bit sound be realized on 16 bit media?? Thanks for the advice and sorry if this is too basic...
S
sucram
New member
Without sticking my neck out too far...
Recording at 24 bit will theoretically give you a more accurate recording than 16 bit because there's greater divisions in possible amplitudes. That may be incentive to record at 24 bit, but it also consumes more storage, and a recorder like the D16 may not be able to record as many tracks at once in 24 bit mode (or playback). So there are tradeoffs. Do some comparisons on recording in both depths and decide which is best for you.
As for getting 24 bit down to a 16 bit audio CD, the Korg should have a feature for changing depth. Look in the manual under "dither", which is a topic you can do a search on in these forums. Or, it will be able to truncate, the bits to 16.
The D16 got great reviews. I was thinking about buying one before I got my computer. How is it treating you?
-marcus
Recording at 24 bit will theoretically give you a more accurate recording than 16 bit because there's greater divisions in possible amplitudes. That may be incentive to record at 24 bit, but it also consumes more storage, and a recorder like the D16 may not be able to record as many tracks at once in 24 bit mode (or playback). So there are tradeoffs. Do some comparisons on recording in both depths and decide which is best for you.
As for getting 24 bit down to a 16 bit audio CD, the Korg should have a feature for changing depth. Look in the manual under "dither", which is a topic you can do a search on in these forums. Or, it will be able to truncate, the bits to 16.
The D16 got great reviews. I was thinking about buying one before I got my computer. How is it treating you?
-marcus
knightfly
GrouchyOldFartOnBatteries
There are a lot more technical explanations available, but take multiple pages to explain. As briefly as possible, here are some points -
When you record digitally, you are storing x number of bits per sample, at whatever frequency the samples are taken. If you can control levels BEFORE digitization so that you use nearly all the availiable headroom on the system you use, and ONLY if you then simply burn that EXACT file to a CDR, then until CD's have a real standard for higher than 16 bit 44.1 k sample rate, you would not see any improvement by using higher than 16 bit conversion for recording. (ignoring different manufacturers and converter quality)
However, in a Digital Workstation of any kind, the minute you change any track in any way, including level, you are performing MATH. In any math operation, it is rare for there NOT to be a remainder. If you do the math on a digital audio signal at 16 bit, you are rounding off a lot more information than if you carry it out to 24 or 32 bits, or 32 bit float which is 24 bit with an 8 bit exponent. This means that every thing you do to a 16 bit track causes more information to be lost because you are rounding off every answer to 16 bits before using that truncated answer for yet another calculation.
I'm running out of time for now, but basically the higher resolution you do the MATH in, all the way through a project, the less error you introduce into the final 16 bit product and the closer to a REAL 16 bits of information you end up with on the CD.that's why the same bit rate/depth (supposedly) on two different CD's can sound so much better or worse. One CD may really be the equivalent of maybe 10 bit 22 kHz, while the other could actually be using ALL the availiable quality inherent in 16/44.1 -
Hope that helped some... Steve
When you record digitally, you are storing x number of bits per sample, at whatever frequency the samples are taken. If you can control levels BEFORE digitization so that you use nearly all the availiable headroom on the system you use, and ONLY if you then simply burn that EXACT file to a CDR, then until CD's have a real standard for higher than 16 bit 44.1 k sample rate, you would not see any improvement by using higher than 16 bit conversion for recording. (ignoring different manufacturers and converter quality)
However, in a Digital Workstation of any kind, the minute you change any track in any way, including level, you are performing MATH. In any math operation, it is rare for there NOT to be a remainder. If you do the math on a digital audio signal at 16 bit, you are rounding off a lot more information than if you carry it out to 24 or 32 bits, or 32 bit float which is 24 bit with an 8 bit exponent. This means that every thing you do to a 16 bit track causes more information to be lost because you are rounding off every answer to 16 bits before using that truncated answer for yet another calculation.
I'm running out of time for now, but basically the higher resolution you do the MATH in, all the way through a project, the less error you introduce into the final 16 bit product and the closer to a REAL 16 bits of information you end up with on the CD.that's why the same bit rate/depth (supposedly) on two different CD's can sound so much better or worse. One CD may really be the equivalent of maybe 10 bit 22 kHz, while the other could actually be using ALL the availiable quality inherent in 16/44.1 -
Hope that helped some... Steve
camn
Active member
physics is fun!!
Light has many properties in common with sound... like wavelength(color), intensity or amplitude, superposition and interference, refraction, the doppler effect (red shift??), and a distinct speed.
The main difference between light and sound is that light is an electromagnetic transverse wave (like a radio wave)... not a mechanical Longitudinal wave (like sound)...and it travels at a very much higher frequency (like.. its faster?). All waves share a crapload of basic similarities..like those mentioned above.. but perhaps a less drunk day would be best for further physics discussions..........
xoxo
Light has many properties in common with sound... like wavelength(color), intensity or amplitude, superposition and interference, refraction, the doppler effect (red shift??), and a distinct speed.
The main difference between light and sound is that light is an electromagnetic transverse wave (like a radio wave)... not a mechanical Longitudinal wave (like sound)...and it travels at a very much higher frequency (like.. its faster?). All waves share a crapload of basic similarities..like those mentioned above.. but perhaps a less drunk day would be best for further physics discussions..........
xoxo
J
jpib7
New member
oh, okay
So from what you've described, there IS a difference of using 24 bit recording even though you are boiling it all down to 16 bits when burning the CDR. I'm not too concerned with taking up space on my D16, I just want to maximize the quality. I thought the math analogy with rounding numbers was very helpful.
So from what you've described, there IS a difference of using 24 bit recording even though you are boiling it all down to 16 bits when burning the CDR. I'm not too concerned with taking up space on my D16, I just want to maximize the quality. I thought the math analogy with rounding numbers was very helpful.