Newbie question : 16 vs 24 bit

[erickp]

I know I am not the first one to ask this question because I've seen quite a few similar ones on the net but, more specifically:

- Sound-wise is a 24 bit recording dithered to 16 bit sounding better than a straight 16 bit process all the way through?

Or in other words, do the additional resolution and dynamic range of a 24 bit process stays (to the hear only) when rendered back to 16 bit.

- Even though the redbook standard is 16 bit, can a 24 bit CD be burned and if so can it be used in normal CD players that you find in commercial products (not computers) such as straight CD players, Stereo systems, Car systems etc..

Thanks for your time!

Erick

 

[Seafroggys]

Well, a pro like Massive can answer this a lot better than I can.

From my understanding, if you take a 24 bit recording and dither it to 16, you won't really get an improvement rather than just straight to 16, from a purely technical perspective. HOWEVER, 24 bit gives you a shit ton of wiggle room during the mixing process, allowing you tons of headroom to work with. If you record straight to 16, and you record at 'decent' levels, you'll bring up the noise floor really quick, especially if you use a lot of compression. At 24 bit, that will never be an issue. You'll have to peak at something like -50 before you lose the benefits of 24 bit.

tldr; 24 bit gives you better flexibility during the mixing process, but offers no technical improvement in the final master, if that makes sense.

With that being said, ALWAYS record in 24 bit.

There is no such thing as a 24 bit music CD. Audio DVDs and SACDs, yes, but good luck finding a player for this (and/or an audience!).

 

[Armistice]

There is sooooooo much material on the net answering your exact queries I'm surprised you feel the need to ask it again.

Seriously, do some googling.

This question comes up so often that people here might be getting a bit tired of typing out the answer by now, but perhaps not.

We'll see....

 

[Massive Master]

Seafroggys more or less covered it...

Much higher resolution (16.7 million possible points vs. 65k in 16-bit), much lower floor, no dither noise, etc.

Notice I didn't say noise floor -- 90% of the time, 16-bit is more than capable of having a higher dynamic range that the gear being used has. But once you add dither noise to 30 tracks, it can be - well, sorta noisy.

24-bit allows you to record at normal levels without any worry of "losing bits" and that sort of goofiness. A -48dBFS signal in 24-bit basically has the same usable resolution as a -0.0dBFS signal in 16-bit (all other things being equal). Although with most modern converters, ever that isn't really much of an issue.

Still ----

The audio industry was more excited about 24-bit becoming the norm for digital audio than the advent of digital audio itself. It's a no-brainer. A dynamic range beyond the gear and beyond human capability.

Are most people really going to notice the difference (especially considering that 90% of the DAWs out there are throwing calculations in a floating-point scenario anyway)? Likely not. But when you're stacking nickels to make dollars (when "every little thing counts") that's one of those "little things" that's worth the nickel.

 

[erickp]

Thanks!

Thanks to Seafroggie and Massive for the answers! Really appreciate it.

Erick