Opinions wanted - 24 bit or 16 bit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eichler
  • Start date Start date
E

eichler

New member
I just installed Sonar on a Win2K partition on a dual boot machine. I have done several projects earlier in Cakewalk using 24 bit but found myself running our of resources rather quickly.

My question is - can you really hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit sound when recording pop, rock, r&b and other types of popular music? If not, then I am inclined to start using Sonar in 16 bit given my previous experience with Cakewalk at 24 bit.

All opoinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
Do a search on this topic, it's been covered a zillion times.

The consensus is that if you plan to do any processing of the audio - reverb, eq, compression, etc. - stick with 24 bits. Each processing step will somewhat *degrade* the file due to math rounding errors in applying the algorithms at the lower bit rates. Better then to start higher.
 
It is my opinion that unless your studio is very high end on the input side, that 24-bit isn't worth the disk space and increased strain on your computer's performance. Given that most people can't hear the difference, and that most internet music is .mp3 format. I'd just as soon have more tracks in my song instead.
 
My opinion, 24 bit is worth it. 96 sampling rate, not worth it unless you have hefty processor and storage.
 
As with anything else, try it and see what happens with YOUR kind of music.... as with anything else, your milage may vary.

Personally, I'm sticking with 24-bit/44.1kHz for now. My music (light R&B/jazz) is quieter and sounds better at 24bits to my ears. I'm sure that a lot of thrash metal could be done at 8-bits with no one noticing (thats a JOKE!)
 
Good advice, I record a "dry" piano at 24 bit/44.1K. It is the processing that can make it sound dull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top