Need your help Please

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexrkstr
  • Start date Start date
A

Alexrkstr

Member
And that is: Is it worth it to upgrade from 16 bit to 24 bit?

1) Will I hear the difference?

I have the M-Audio MobilePre which only records 16 bit. I am thinking of the same interface with 24bit capability.

And this is what I would like

- 24-bit
- 2 microphone inputs (XLR balanced) with 48v phantom power
- 2 high-impedance instrument/line inputs (balanced/unbalanced 1/4” TRS)
- 2 mono line outputs (1/4”)
- stereo line output (1/8”)
- stereo headphone output with level control knob
- gain control knob for each input channel (+40 dB max)
- USB-powered (No Firewire)


2) If it is worth it then What do you recommend? So far I am thinking of:
- Alesis IO2
- Tascam 122L or 144

What other interfaces with these capabilities do you recommned in the $150 budget.
 
Thanks Tom. That was useful, why haven't you upgraded to 24?
 
This question gets asked a lot.

The simple answer is, record in 24 bit if you can. If your converters aren't 24-bit, then I would say just stick to 16-bit because it wouldn't be "true" 24-bit.

If you have the disk space, converters, and CPU to handle it, then always record in 24-bit.
 
24 bit audio in theory will provide you with 144 db of dynamic range where as 16 bit only give you 96 db of dynamic range. This of course is in a perfect world. In action you usually get a bit less. more like 80ish in 16 bit and more like 115-120 ish in the 24 bit department. Dynamic range creates more headroom. This is generally considered a GOOD THING™ It also allows a greater range between the noise floor and the signal you are recording. Once again this is considered a GOOD THING™ since after you record 20 tracks the noise on all of those tracks start to add up. If the signal to noise ratio is to low then it adds lots of noise (usually as hiss) to the mix. if the signal to noise ratio
is high then less hiss gets added and is further "behind" the recorded signal and therefore less noticeable. I personally believe that the difference between 16 /24 bit audio in terms of processing power, increased disk space is well worth the trade off. There is alot more to it but this is a very brief explanation.

Randy
 
Alexrkstr said:
Thanks Tom. That was useful, why haven't you upgraded to 24?
Click to expand...

Several reasons. I really do like my Aardvark card. Comfort and ease of use is important to me. It seems to sound pretty good. Aardvark was a quality company that was known for studio clocks. Maybe, (hopefully) some of that know-how went into their audio cards.

Also, I still have a PIII computer, with 512 RAM, and it handles the processing for 16 bit just fine. If I upgrade, I may have to upgrade my computer as well.

A few months ago I was visiting my father and told him of this dilemma. He has a card that can do up to 24/192. So we spent an entire afternoon tracking acoustic guitar at various combinations of bits and sample rates.

Although it may go against the conventional wisdom, here is what I heard. The difference between 24 and 16 was fairly small. Especially if you waited a few minutes before files to listen. The 24 bit files seemed slightly louder. However, the higher we went with the sample rate the smoother the sound became. There was virtually no difference between 16/192 and 24/192. (I should add, on this particular card) My father advised me to record at 48khz, (highest sample rate on my Aardvark) and I would get smoother sound and smoother processing on plug-ins. And that turned out to be right. Most people on these boards say don't bother with 48khz, but it seemed to work in my case.

I have recently learned that there is an ASIO driver available for USB that will allow my Aardvark to record at 24 bit. So I am mulling this over, but don't know if my computer will be up to the task. So it's not over yet.
 
Use 24 bit with more powerful computer and if the converters support it. 24 DB provide 144 db of dynamic range only at 192 KHz. At 96, its like 108db, or something like that.
 
haarisa said:
Use 24 bit with more powerful computer and if the converters support it. 24 DB provide 144 db of dynamic range only at 192 KHz. At 96, its like 108db, or something like that.
Click to expand...

Although I don't know enough to verify your figures, you raise a good general point. Manufacturer specs are often what a piece of gear is capable of doing, but not nesessarily what the gear will do in any given real world system with other limiting factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top