My first 24-bit try.......

  • Thread starter Thread starter powderfinger
  • Start date Start date
powderfinger

powderfinger

New member
I recorded a quick solo acoustic number as to test two things.........

1. Is 24 bit worth it over 16 bit.........I had never done 24 bit before, and quite frankly am not sure if it helped quality or not........opinions on this would be great

2. Do I really need a pair of Octava's m012s for stereo recording my acoustic stuff......or can I make do with what I have and get some different equipment............again, I'm having a hard time deciding............I think the acoustic sounds okay here despite the Cat Stevens'ish pick sound that I managed to pick up........

anyhow, I recorded 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' in a similar arrangement to the legendary Israel Kamakawiwo'ole..........i know there are some subtle pitch and timing issues, but this was just a one take for the reasons above...........

last track on the page...'somewhere over the rainbow'
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1642&alid=154
 
I think the question of whether you can "make do with what [you] have" is up to you. I think you got a very nice acoustic sound here...

Do you prefer this sound or the sound of the 012's?
 
SLuiCe said:
Do you prefer this sound or the sound of the 012's?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this.....I have only heard others use 012s , but I figure that it could really help out...as this recording was a SM58 and the bleed from the vocal mic, an MXL v93
 
When I started doing this stuff a year ago, I was miking EVERYTHING with a 58...it's all I had. If you're looking for sonic honesty, the 012's are great. Naturally, you'll need to be very careful about movement, breathing etc. I find myself accidently forgetting to resume breathing sometimes, to the point where I have to stop recording! But I'm a bit obsessive.
And for the money...well damn. Each 012 is about the price of a 58...
And if you decide they weren't worth it, you should have no trouble unloading them. Hell, if I get another band going, I may offer to buy them for drum overheads ;)
 
SLuiCe said:
When I started doing this stuff a year ago, I was miking EVERYTHING with a 58...it's all I had
Click to expand...

that statement makes me wanna puke.... your shit sounds THAT good and you come up with these "hilerious" statements;)
 
lol mixmkr...I've only been recording for a year. I've been a "musician" since I was 5, waiting for the kindergarten bus, standing on a stump singing "all we are is dust in the wind..."

And did you catch the bit about "obsessive"? I usually forget to eat when I sit down to this stuff.
 
Usually when I play a song at lo-fi (cause all i have is 56k) it sounds like transister radio speakers due to the loss in the sonic. I did lo-fi on this one first, it was near as clean as a lot of hi-fi streams. I then did the hi-fi stream and the clarity was awesome.
Ken
 
man i really like that guitar sound.....
the vox too...i never heard the version you said this was like so to me its new. man this is a hard song to sing. i like this arrangement tho.
more of a somber feel to it
somber thats me !!

hey if i could get my guitar to sound this good..i would probably write a book about how cool i thought i was.


seriously nice my man

jamal
 
pf, super. great chops and singing. who trys this tune, and pulls it off? you did.

dtb
 
powderfinger said:
1. Is 24 bit worth it over 16 bit.........I had never done 24 bit before, and quite frankly am not sure if it helped quality or not........opinions on this would be great
Click to expand...



I have done many tests, and imhop 24 bit 44.1 is better than 16.. It doesn't matter as much to me lately because I have heard many many a recording done 16 bit that blows away anything I have ever done, or ever will do.. Participant told me that my best recording was a song called 'a splitting headache', and it puzzles me because it was recorded on a 4 track mini disc before I got my 788! I think if I get better at recording, the 16 vs. 24 won't matter *as much.* It all depends who's pushing the buttons..



This song has a pretty good sound to me, but I'm sure it could have been achieved in 16 bit too.. I have to give you props for having the balls to do this song.. You did it well..
 
Hey man...I have a vote on the bit rate. The rate apparently matters a lot, depending on what your software does to it. Since you're using Cakewalk, I don't know how big a difference it makes, but I (VERY recently) discovered that the mixes I was doing in 16bit in CoolEdit sound a whole lot better at 32 bit... The reason for this, apparently, is that the software converts everything to 32 bit (internally) for processing, then BACK to 16 bit, and in the process, stuff gets "dithered" (a mysterious and noble process whereby highs get eliminated from the mix). I've always been a fan of doing submixes and stuff to make the workspace easier, and all the "dithering" was cutting a lot of highs out of my mixes that I had to then try to add back in later with EQ. I'm rambling, but my point is that as long as you've got the hard drive space to do it, why not, why not work at the highest bitrate possible?

I've heard this version of the tune before, and I thought the sounds you got on this were pretty darn nice. Your sounds are getting better without an upgrade in equipment, but Sluice is right...you'll never have a problem finding a use for decent condensers. The difference they make on a vocal, btw, is the most important upgrade you can make.

Have fun,
chris
 
I think you can really hear the differnce of 24 bit when you are recording sources with a lot of overtones like piano and cymbals. 24 bit cymbals just sound so much better than 16bit. More realistic with less of a harsh sound. I bet 88.2 would really make cymbals shine because of the added high overtones you could get with the "extra bandwidth."

Beezoboy
 
Well, thanks for the feedback guys........I'm glad most all of you liked IZ's arrangement, too, for those who hadn't heard it...I was worried, as my first form of feedback I got was in the form of a fairly harsh Nowereradio Review that I thought was kind of funny..............

Rating: 1 out of 5
"One has to be pretty smooth to change a classic melody that many think is one of the best of all time..."

To the reviewer........I DIDN'T CHANGE THE CLASSIC MELODY.......Israel Kamakawiwo'ole did....and did a damn fine job.......anyhow, i thought that was funny enough to share w/ you guys

-~-~

Toki987......that's good feedback about the playback and possibly good reason to keep doing 24bit........great avatar

Jamal......thanks for listening......the acoustic sound always seems to be a work in progess.......I figure new mics couldn't hurt

dtb......if you think i pulled this tune off, i really urge you to listen to the original.....a huge Hawiian guy w/ just a ukelele......it's amazing........i really urge you to seek it out

SABBATH....you mentioned the thing that i think is completely right....."if i get better at recording, 16 v 24 won't matter as much".....i need to use that as motivation to improve.......

Chris........good point about, "why not if you have the space".......that's probably what'll keep me doing 24-bit.......i've got the space.....i think i'm pretty set on those condensors.........thanks for listening
 
pf,

this really isn't too bad of a sound. IMO in this case you've done a good job mic'ing your acoustic; a different mic pre may give you more of a difference than new mics.

That said, you can't go wrong with the oktavas, like Tom said. Drum overheads, string & woodwind instruments... very useful. And they do sound good on acoustic guitar.

Another issue is: how difficult is it to mix tracks that you've recorded, like this track? How about songs you mix with more tracks? Is it hard to get everything to "sit" together in the mix? I'm coming to realize that the less you use EQ, and the more you capture the sound you want AT TRACKING, the easier time you'll have at mixdown.

Those sh*tty files you heard from me yesterday (which were removed :)) confirm that. The electric guitar sound just wasn't going to sit with the acoustics, no matter how much "mixing" I could do. You have to imagine what sounds will complement each other in a mix, then go about trying to get them AT TRACKING.

Anyway... sorry for rambling. That stuff should all be intuitive, anyway. Interesting arrangement of that song, BTW.


Chad
 
Hey Powder,

.....get yerself some condensers man. Dont get me wrong..... your git sounds great...... but I think you'll never use your 58 again for this purpose if you have a condeser.

...I too have done some personal testing between 16 and 24 bit. Once you have the condenser, .....you'll hear it. Its not a noticable thing, but if youre looking for the difference, ...you can find it. I dont think you'll notice w/ 58's though.... so, you know how it is..... the more shit you buy, the more shit you need. And aint that a bitch:) .

Your tune: Sounds like you know about the pitch issues and stuff.... I liked the arrangement. Ive never heard of Kamakioli.....w.......r......... (damn, how'ld you like to have to sign that name:D ) ....but i like:)

g
 
Nice guitar sound-I'll need to go back and read how you did it--I use an mc012 on acoustic-works like a charm...Can't say if I can tell a difference in bit rates and stuff-unless its side by side-but this has a nice full quality. I just saw the flaming lips a few weeks ago and they closed their show with this tune-its like part of the collective unconscious at this point-you can sing it even if you don't know the words...and umm ahem...you might want to look up the changes for this one if you do it again.....Looking forward to your next....
 
My vote's for the 24 bit. I can definitely tell the difference in my own recordings.
As for your guitar sound..........it really sounds good as it is. that being said; you can't have too many mics. They're all different colors for the palette.
 
participant said:
I'm coming to realize that the less you use EQ, and the more you capture the sound you want AT TRACKING, the easier time you'll have at mixdown.
Click to expand...


DING DING DING DING

BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO!
 
Beezoboy , i think you're right about the overtones.....i think that can help with a compressed acoustic as well, thanks for listening

participant , i've almost decided that i'm going to splurge for both mics and a mic pre........oktava 012s and a dmp3 pre....the latest home recording mag had a small article that i think sold me on the dmp3........

Guernica , thanks for listening......i'm 90% sure i'm gonna get condensors now..........

Strat , yeah, i know the changes sound weird, but read up above......it's a different arrangement by a famous Hawaiian singer that's gotten pretty popular.....you should try and check that version out....i'd like to hear the flaming lips version

Lt. Bob , thanks for the advice and thanks for listening.......true about not having too many mics

Sluice , i second your dings and bingos
 
With bitrates the problem is if the software is accounting for tracks mixed in at less than 100% volume. You don't want to amplify the track (down) before mixing it in unless you are converting it to a higher bitrate first. If you don't a track mixed in at half the volume is essentially converted to an 8 bit format first (or something like that) because of the drop in overall amplitude.

Ultimately you aren't going to preserve the full dynamic range of every track mixed in quietly, but it's better to sum all the tracks at their full resolution and just take the rounding errors on the final mix, Or so I would think.

Doug H
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top