when it REALLY comes down to it...(yes, more 16-bit vs 24-bit)

[Emeric]

24 mono tracks, why would I be using 24 stereo tracks?? Just simple straight ahead rock and roll here. Not recording the soundtrack for Star Wars.

But, since it appears your not interested in the technical side of the postings above, your free to ignore it. It's technical babble, but it does translate into a difference in the end. This has been discussed to death anyway. It's not so much the immediate 'sound' difference, but the multiples of sounds/effects processing where 24bit has it's advantages. It's different medium with unique problems and unique solutions.

 

[windowman]

No need to get huffy pal. As far as using less than 24 mono tracks goes, we're an instrumental trio. We seldom fill up even 10 tracks. I hate big productions. It's nothing but a wall of clutter to me. My favorite recordings are almost all small trios, or soloists.

My point was that Camn said the difference could be heard when you used a lot more tracks. Well, I don't like a lot of tracks and don't really care to make a recording like that myself, so I was hoping you had some 24 bit recordings that did have a bunch of tracks so I could test this hypothosis of his. If you don't that's fine. Maybe someone else does.

"It's technical babble, but it does translate into a difference in the end."

Well, that's just the thing, the "end" is the final production is it not? Surely someone here has got a big production with tons of tracks and plug-ins that was recorded at 24 bit they can show me. Steely Dan does. But it doesn't sound any better to me. But maybe if I invest in a 3-thousand dollar stereo system I'll hear it....

 

[Emeric]

Sure I have lots of 'big' productions in my own way, but they are not in a pro context. I really don't know what you want windowman. If you having a good time with 16 bit, keep doing it. I've recorded stuff 16bit, 18bit, 20bit. I like a lot - of all of them. I've done the analog route to. It is the end result that matters. Why are you so interested in the differences between 24 bit and 16 bit? It ain't night and day, it isn't black and white. So why the interest? Man it's just a little IC doing it's job.. why all the strife?

---

edit

---

ok, I'm starting to see the problem. You think I'm (perhaps you in the upper part of the page, didn't want to include you haphazard) some weird audiophile guy. I got dual Brystons and Electrostatic speakers fired up at the moment actually.

 

[Stealthtech]

Quote

Recording with 18, 20, 22, or 24 bits will always take 50 percent more hard disk space then 16-bit recording, and will also greatly reduce the maximum number of audio channels that you will manage with a given PC. The increase in audio quality will depend greatly on the individual system, its converters, and the quality of the source material.
Moving up to 20- or 24-bit PC recording is only sensible if your sources will benefit from it, or if your customers demand it. If you intend to do a lot of hard disk audio recording of live music, you will certainly find it easier to work with more headroom available, and with 24-bit converters you could probably work with 20dB or more of headroom without compromising the signal quality too much. Of course a wider dynamic range isn't the only advantage of 24-bit -- the overall quality of the converters may well be better too.
However, much modern music is heavily limited or compressed, and there seems little point in using such converters with this material. In fact, some people claim that 16-bit recording at 96kHz can provide better results than 24-bit at 44.1kHz. This is likely to be because of the very sharp low-pass filter cutoff needed at about 20kHz to avoid artifacts when recording at 44.1kHz. If the material is recorded at a sampling rate of 96kHz, the roll-off need only be comparatively gentle, and even when converted down to 44.1kHz afterwards, the top end may sound more natural. For this reason, an 88.2kHz sampling rate may be useful, since it is likely to be easier to convert later to 44.1kHz than a 96kHz sample rate.
Ultimately you have to use your ears, and not rely on figures alone. In fact many people would put this the other way round -- you should use your ears first, and then confirm the figures afterwards.
Once you move beyond the theory into the real world of actually recording analogue sources, other factors enter the equation as well, and if you are contemplating moving up to 20- or 24-bit recording, it is worth first considering the rest of the recording chain. If you have a cupboard full of expensive low-noise mics and ultra low-noise mic preamps in a soundproofed studio with high-quality wiring, you are likely to get wonderful results when recording at 24-bit resolution. The reality, for many people, is rather different. Developers have found it difficult to test 24-bit recording quality with their latest soundcards, simply because few rooms are sufficiently quiet enough to give a background noise level that is low enough to record acoustic signals with a dynamic range beyond 16-bit levels.
Low-noise mics are generally quiet enough to benefit from being recorded at 24-bit resolution, and it's easy to assume that digital synthesizers will do so as well. In many cases, however, the improvement over 16-bit will be negligible. The source samples used in these instruments are generally 16-bit samples, recorded at 44.1 or 48kHz; they may, however, be processed within the synth and its onboard digital effects at a higher bit depth to avoid rounding errors in calculation. If they are then fed to a 20- or 24-bit digital output, it may be worth recording digitally at this depth. However, most digital synths still lack digital outputs, and seem to use D-A converters of no greater than 16-bit resolution in generating their analogue output -- so there is little point recording their analogue signal at anything other than 16 bits, as its dynamic range will not exceed what can be captured by 16-bit recording. In addition, the background noise of many synths may also be annoyingly high in some cases.Perhaps it's not so surprising that few synth manufacturers publish technical figures for noise. In any case, the moral would seem to be to check up, if possible, on the dynamic range output by your digital synthesizer before choosing to record it at 24-bit resolution.

 

[windowman]

Like Slackmaster I think it's time I bowed out of this thread. I've said all I meant to and I don't think any of us is going to convince the other. But more importantly to me, it just isn't worth loosing sleep over. It's only music. It's non-eternal as the preachers say. We can go over the mathematics and do all kinds of listening tests but the important thing is that everyone's happy and doesn't put themselves or their families in the poor house to get that way. It's not like we're trying to decipher the implications of q-bit information waves on quantum memory/intent, or make sense of unstable gravity waves in the flat universe we now know we live in (if you believe the Boomerang Project's report like most people.) It's only music. And no one will remember any of us ever played a note a million years from now.

If we want something worth loosing sleep over we can all try to figure the sense in any of us studying and working hard for years on end to be at the top of our musical abilities only to discover that our biggest challenge lies in trying to get 50 heads to show up at our gigs instead of 40. All the while, kids who know little more than 5 chords and how to jump up and down nice and high are selling thousands of records. I saw a note a short while back between Bob Bennett (a songwriter's songwriter if ever there was one) and someone else saying more or less the same thing and wondering how he was gonna pay the rent. As great as the Glass Harp was, here they are back together, just out with a new double CD and darn if they can even find a distributor for it. Hell, Phil Keaggy just got his old Les Paul out of the Rock n Roll hall of fame Glass Harp Exhibit in order to do the album. And yet he can't find a distributor for it? It's just too sad for me to think about. What's the point?

 

[mcmd]

Windowman,

enjoyed The Glass Harp!..and you have put alot of effort into your posting, ....as have Slack and others.

It is a great topic!

I too live in 16-bit land, have a slower/older PC and so an audio card upgrade that takes advantage of a higher bit depth, will likely require a new computer and a recording software upgrade.


It would seem that for compositions that require a limited number of tracks ( Bass, guitar, lead, vocal, loop beat), and limited effects/processing, that 16 bits can faithfully do the job; whereas miking an acoustic drum kit, multiple miking of guitars and instruments, plenty of effects processing and plenty of post processing and editing can better take advantage of the higher bit depth? hmmmm....

So, the question we are asking in 16-bit land is, 'does an upgrade make sense for us?-- average Joe's, you know the ones, -played in bands in college, and now have a wife and kids .... and recording music is a hobby/passion .....or, highschool/limited budget....newbie

Also, some interesting points made with respect to sound reproduction versus sound perception...

A similiar problem exists with video processing, where our limited visual acuity is exploited to full advantage. TV is broadcast at 15 frames per second, maybe 30 for DVD but after that who cares! DVD technology hides vast amounts of distortion at a frame/scene change and with events in motion, i.e. our eyes have a low bandwidth and don't track change/motion very well.

Our hearing is also low bandwidth, and gets lower with age and dB exposure.

So, next year when we are offered 32 bit or 48 bit converters at 192KHz, what do you say?


Also, there are new audio formats such as DVD Audio and Super Audio, that process at 24 bit/192KHz. I would think that they will drive the standards.

Ultimately, electronic components/systems continue to gain performance increases each year, and cost less as *newer* technologies displace them. So, whether or not we CAN hear and preceive the sonic differencies, the market will continue to drive towards yet higher fidelity, -- because they CAN!

.....dithering away some where in NE,

DJ

 

[musicking]

You guys are killing me! All this crap about which is better. 16 bit vs. 24 bit. Who really cares. The bottom line is this. IF IT SOUNDS RIGHT, IT'S RIGHT!

I have recorded both ways. Only an ear that is trained will hear the difference anyway. I have had airplay with both types of recordings. So the end result is this. IT DOESN'T MATTER. The main objective to recording is knowing how to use the equipment that you have to it's full potential. A good sound engineer will get the same result no matter what he is using.

I may be a "Newbie" to this forum, but I am not a "Newbie" to the recording industry.

You all need to grow up and just go record something.

 

[Stealthtech]

Quote


Most people understand that, in order to maintain high audio quality, internal mathematical calculations need to be carried out at a high resolution. This minimizes rounding errors that accumulate and give rise to grainy artifacts at low audio levels (such as the end of reverb tails and fade-outs). Normally, when a system is working with 16-bit audio data the internal resolution used for audio processing will be 24-bit or even 32-bit. There's understandable confusion when applications are said to contain 32-bit-compatible code. This refers to the way computer data is addressed, and not audio data. Having 32-bit code doesn't mean that you're dealing with 32-bit audio data -- the two are quite separate. However, the internal processing resolution used by software is a fundamental choice of the developer, and you would expect that it would be set to an optimum value and left alone.
The problem is that every time you process a 16-bit audio file, further rounding errors are created -- with each operation the losses accumulate, and the fidelity of your audio degrades a tiny bit more. For example, if you EQ a 16-bit file the calculations may be carried out internally at 32-bit resolution, but when you click the OK button your data emerges as a 16-bit file. If you then add some reverb to the sound, another set of 32-bit calculations is carried out, followed by truncating (chopping off the extra bits) to a final 16-bit file. Finally, you normalize the file to bring its peak value to the maximum digital value -- yet another set of calculations, followed by more rounding errors. Although each process has been carried out accurately for the optimum sound, the final audio quality has been compromised.
There are normally two ways to minimize this problem: either you carry out all intermediate processes at a higher resolution of 20, 24 or 32 bits (converting back to 16-bit audio only at the final stage), or you apply dithering at each stage, which converts the low-level rounding errors into a steady hiss (which can be made less obvious by 'shaping' the noise so that it occurs at frequencies to which the ear is less sensitive). However, many dithering systems are not designed to be used more than once; they're intended to be used as the final process in the audio chain, just before mastering. If high levels of carefully tailored noise have already been added, adding yet more may cause audible problems at high frequencies. So the best option is to try to ensure that your audio stays at a higher resolution throughout editing, reducing it with noise-shaped dither only at the final stage, before saving it at 16-bit resolution.

 

[shackrock]

wow!

man, i dont check the forum for 1 day, and look what i see i've started when i get back!

now to tell you all the truth, towards the end of reading all this, i realized that i pretty much dont understand a thing that was said...lol! Sounds like most people agree that 24bit is the way to go, if you updating your soundcard, and it will definately yield better results - while a few disagree.

well ok, but can anyone who has the ability to, PLEASE post a sample? I know to some $100+ may not be much...but before i get a new soundcard i'd like to make sure its worth it.


oh and slack, i hope your still reading this post - cuz i had a question for you:
as you said,
"The first thing you need to do is actually hear your soundcard. Forget about all the 24 and 16bit crap. Run a guitar direct to your soundcard such that you're monitoring the sound through your monitoring system. Play it for a while and really listen to what it sounds like, good or bad. Now hit the record button and play for a while. Now stop, and playback what you just recorded. Does it sound *exactly* the way it sounded when you were playing live? Hardly. There, that's your soundcard. "

I DEFINATELY know what you're saying. Even more so, when i play, for example, a miked guitar amp - and listen to it while playing through my behringer mixer - i'm like wow this sounds perfect, no need to move the mic anywhere. Then, however, i record it - and everyone in the room is saying, "what were you tihnking scott!?" That is followed by me moving it to, what it seems, sound WORSE on the mixer, and it actually seems to come up better after recorded. So you're saying with a 24bit card, instead of my really really old SB awe 16 card, i'll get closer to what i hear on the mixer when i record?


Thanks again everyone.

 

[weatherbill]

I think I have an answer to this argument

Ah, I think a light has come on in my brain about this 16/24 bit debate.
The producer type wants 24 bit, but the musician type is for 16 bit,.......here's why

If you're like me, the musician/song writer type, your focus is on the hook, the soloing, the live sound, the groove, and when your focus is on this, no one is a gonna care or hear the difference between 16 or 24 bit, because the focus of you is on the execution and your crowd's focus is on it to
but if you're the producer type, you want 24 bit because you're into all the technical stuff of producing that the commer person does'nt really her anyway.
It's like comparing Britney Spears with Led Zeppelin.
Britney is the 24 bit girl. She's all glam and stage show and has someone else performing the music at 24 bit, but Jimmy Page didn't need to jump around on stage with a bunch of hyper theatrics. People wer listening to the music man and I'll take that at 16 bit any day over 24 bit glam.
Right on Windowman!

 

[Shailat]

I may be a "Newbie" to this forum, but I am not a "Newbie" to the recording industry.

You must be a newbie.....only a newbie would say something like that.

 

[Emeric]

Right on! You have all inspired me to plug in my 8 bit sound blaster pro compatible sound card. Fuck bit depth, man I could have saved myself a lot of money if I had just kept this thing and not bothered buying into this bunk pro-sumer crap. Lets get retro! Who needs those bits anyway.

No J Page just used a violin bow, a therimin and freaky clothing, no need for theatrics with that! I mean, that is the norm right?

 

[Track Rat]

You guys are killing me! All this crap about which is better. 16 bit vs. 24 bit. Who really cares.

Well.....I care. Granted a good song is a good song on a cassette or 2" tape or 16 bit/44.1 or 24/196. But I'm at these forums to find out how to capture that good song the VERY best way that I can, so, I care. And for what it's worth, I go 24 bit/44.1 as far as I can before dithering to 16 bits. My computer can handle it and I believe I can hear a difference between multi tracking at 16 bits vs 24. YMMV.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I have recorded both ways. Only an ear that is trained will hear the difference anyway. I have had airplay with both types of recordings.

My computer can handle it and I believe I can hear a difference between multi tracking at 16 bits vs 24. YMMV.

Guys, guys, guys alright already. You've both done it both ways and now it's time to put these doubting Thomas's to rest. Post the two songs and show them the difference. That's all they are asking for is an example.

 

[windowman]

DJ,

Glad you liked the Glass Harp. I came across their first album when I was a teenage GI Joe type stationed out in Alaska. Wore out several copies of those GH records. Up until I heard Keaggy I just knew a few chords and simple little folk songs etc, and was more interested in chasing girls and playing basketball than music. But it was him who inspired me to really want to be a musician. You're right of course in that we'll all be at 24 bit someday. And when it gets to the point that I have to buy a new box I'm sure that anything I get a couple of years down the road will be more than adequate for 24 bit recording. But right now my gear isn't that old and it would be a big investment to get into 24 bit and I just don't see the point. Things sound great as they are so, que sera sera.

And as far as all this talk about having lots of tracks and effects running at once and this making things get muddy sounding, all I can say is that virtually every CD that's been produced in the past decade were recorded in 16 bit studios...thousands of em. They all sound fine to me no matter how many tracks were used.

What it comes down to is the musicianship though. I'll still listen to my old Django 78 transfers too. I don't care about the quality of the sound. That's not worth worrying about. If the man can play--I'm there, period. And if he ain't a virtuoso he's got no business making records. At least I won't be buying them. You can have top 40 land and Madonna-ville. Like the man said, "Anybody can make crap." How hard is that? So I think a lot of us are on the same track really. If you already have a great puter and a killer room etc, and your equipment can handle 24 bit then there's no point in not using it whether you can hear the difference in sound or not. But if it's going to be a big investment, there's really no point in it. But someday no doubt we'll all be there. And by then others will probably be recording at 64 bit or something. They won't sound any better either but they'll have money to burn and will be convinced people will want to hear their crap if they make it sound clearer. Oh well.

Stealthtech,

That's some funny stuff. I had an interesting article laying around here somewhere about this guy who raved about the sound of his old Yamaha MD-8 unit. He said that eventually they got the codec sounding so good for it that it had this "wonderful mystic" to the sound and that he was even running all his wave tracks now through the Yamaha unit and then dumping it back onto the multi-track program because he wanted them all to have that Yamaha "sound". You gotta love it! I mean here we are running on and on about whether we should dump a third more bits across the frequency spectrum and here's this guy that's taking his wave files and ripping out probably 75% of the information there in order to get that "Yamaha Mystic" thingy. That just tickled me to no end.

 

[mixsit]

<"The first thing you need to do is actually hear your soundcard. Forget about all the 24 and 16bit crap. Run a guitar direct to your soundcard such that you're monitoring the sound through your monitoring system. Play it for a while and really listen to what it sounds like, good or bad...
I DEFINATELY know what you're saying. Even more so, when i play, for example, a miked guitar amp - and listen to it while playing through my behringer mixer - i'm like wow this sounds perfect, no need to move the mic anywhere. Then, however, i record it - and everyone in the room is saying, "what were you tihnking scott!?" That is followed by me moving it to, what it seems, sound WORSE on the mixer, and it actually seems to come up better after recorded. So you're saying with a 24bit card, instead of my really really old SB awe 16 card, i'll get closer to what i hear on the mixer when i record? >

Hey, I'll jumpin here.
I think what 'slack might have been saying is that to test how the card is sounding, your comparing the source- the sound of the line going into the card, to the converted sound. But to do this, you would want to not be hearing any of the original sound in the room while you'r doing it. In other words, completly isolated. (A little tough at least for us that don't have "Real Stuidos".)
Which leads to the other thing; if your tracking and hearing the guitar in the room, then on play back it's missing all that extra space and tone. You know where this going... And it always seems to sound more distorted form a close mic than it does sitting there even right in front of the amp. Never ceases to amaze me... (Ok, do it over again!
Chears

 

[Basslord1124]

I'll agree with letting it rest. I tried reading the entire post today but was only able to finish the whole 1st page...after that I just said screw it. I don't know what's worse...a post with one word or a post with a bunch of words.