Re: This is starting to bother me
If 24 bit recording does not produce any better sound than 16 bit during the recording/mixing stages then why does every major studio on earth do it????
Capitol, Paramount .... They all do it for a reason.
Because you can make yourself believe just about anything if you want to I would guess. Sci-fi author, Phillip K. Dick, had a wonderful story along these lines:
He said he had a friend that was a real classical music connoisseur who put a lot of stock in having only
certain recordings of his favorite music. He would often rave about a particular recording he had of this piano concerto or that symphonic piece and would go on and on about how this was the defining recording of that particular tune. He often would bring albums by Dick's house and they would listen together.
One day Dick had the idea to pull a prank on his friend. He had brought over a recording of some piece of music that Dick also had a recording of. Dick's recording was much older, by a completely different orchestra, and it even sounded scratchy because he had played it so much. While his friend was in the restroom he switched recordings. When the man came back into the room the other recording was now playing. He remarked to Dick, "See how wonderful this is! I tell you, there's no better recording in existence of this particular tune. Just listen to how the violinist plays this part coming up next. There, see! Isn't it marvelous?"
Dick never told him he had switched recordings but he and his friends always had great fun joking about it behind his back.
For that matter, I once put up a recording of a song I made, in the Microphone forum here. I never told anyone the details of the recording and everyone just thought it was the most marvelous thing. Several wanted to know what board I used or what preamp etc. Including one who had regularly blasted people for using SB Live cards saying they were noisy and would turn recordings into mud. Well, it was done without a mixing board, just a cheap $100 Marshall mic through a little Art Tube preamp and into
a Boss AD5 Acoustic Guitar preamp (yes, a preamp into a preamp) and then into an SB Live and recorded at 16/44.1. (I only needed one stereo track so there was no need to record at 16/48 to keep them in sync.) It was dead quiet and the high end
sparkled. I can't imagine it sounding better.
If you have a bigger word length you get a bigger signal to noise ratio. Do you want more signal or more noise ????
I've got dead silence now and a pristine sound.
A cd has a signal to noise ratio of 150 dB.
There is no such thing. 100 db is as high as it gets. You're talking about a percentage of noise against the recorded sound.
But unless you go into a CD player other stuff generates noise. Effects, pre amps, compressors all add noise. You want more signal.
I don't have any noise. And if you're getting noise from your preamps etc, then "if" it were true that recording at a higher bit rate made a more intelligible sound, you'd only be making your noise more prominent.
Why is this ?? read a book on encoding.
Huh?
In addition you want to have a large word size and sampling to make all of those silly plugins you homewreckers insist on using work well. Digital signal processing is a data transformation and as such works better with more data.
Home wreckers? (That's two words by the way.) That makes no sense at all. My silly plug-ins work great. Signal processing "appears" to work better with more data. The fact remains that there's a point at which more data becomes redundant and a waste of time. I think we've reached that point with 16/44.1 and any further adding to the data stream seems fruitless and a waste of time and system resources.
Dithering produces better sound.
Prove it.
The pro guys here already know that and would like to move on to discussing newer and more controversial topics.
Name one who's told you this; and I don't know any pro guys who come here.
So, they get tired of the same holes in the same arguments.
You mean like I'm getting now….
I am no pro. I am at school studying up to be one though.
You certainly are not; you're a kid in dire need of a spanking and an attitude adjustment.
Higher bit rates, word sizes are better. Effects on those signals will sound more real.
Let's hear it. Those DVD's don't sound any better to me at all.
It does take better hardware to record at 24 bit. It does take a better computer. But two inch tape also costs more than 1/4 inch tape right ?
Yes but you don't see anyone rushing out to build a tape machine and tape that's a foot wide do you? It becomes redundant and a waste of resources. We're not dogs; our ears are only so good and no more.
If it does not sound better on your machine.
1. You are doing it wrong.
2. Your gear is maxed or crummy.
3. Your dsp has a shitty clock.
4. You recorded it badly.
If it "does" sound better on your machine maybe you're only fooling yourself. People are very good at that. People spent thousands of years building pyramids totally convinced that those laid to rest within would resurrect. Not one of them ever did; their bodies are lying in state at museums around the world….
Listen to a DVD on a nice stereo and then to a CD. Can you not hear the difference of 24 bit rec ? If not then turn the shit down deaf boy.
Oh to be 14 again….
)