why bother with 24 bit

[Robert D]

Wow Glen, time to call a publisher.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Wow Glen, time to call a publisher.

You know any???

Actually, I could probably use a proofreader/spellchecker before anything else . I used all my time (thanks Jay! ) typing and didn't take time to spellcheck very well...

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Y20k?[/B]
Now you mention that 20kHz may not be a fair upper limit. I addressed this in a earlier post. Even those that fall on the side of thinking that there is an elusive "air" to be obtained by resolving some frequencies above 20kHz or so - and that is an honest debate which not even the "experts" agree upon - don't believe that frequencies anything above 30khz are useful. That would mean a sample rate of 66.15kHz or so. The fact is, that even for those golden ears and audiophiliacs, 88.2kHz is overkill already by a good 22kHz. A 96kHz rate is just piling on, and 192kHz is ridiculously obscene.

So perhaps, PERHAPS, one might argue that the next steps up from 44.1kHz - namely 48kHz and 88.2kHz might have some worthiness in audiophile-class recordings. But that is certainly debatable - the experts debate it all the time - and certianly not solidly backed up by expirimental data from actual controlled listening tests. Test after test has yield, at best, conflicting or inconclusive results. It is also not backed up when looking at the limitations of the rest of the signal chain from microphone to loudspeaker, which simply are not designed to give a rat's ass about those higher frequencies.

G.

While I don't disagree with you that going beyond 20kHz (or 40kHz sampling rate) on recording/reproductive systems is usually an overkill, there are other technical reasons for doing so.

1. When using higher sampling rates, you can use antialiasing filters with a shallower slope, which allows the designs to have less ringing, phase issues, etc than you'd get from brick wall filters that are necessary at 44.1kHz. Of course the benefits of using shallower filters may get negated if other components of the AD converter aren't up to snuff. Clock stability becomes more of an issue at higher sampling rates, and it is more difficult to design stable clocks at these rates for example. So, I suppose in the end a quality 44.1kHz/16bit converter could outperform a middle of the road 96kHz/24bit converter.

2. It is benefitial to use higher sampling rates in samplers as they allow for a wider range of sample transposition and lessen aliasing artifacts during transpositions.

3. Sometimes you just want to be able to annoy the neighbor's chihuahua

 

[danny.guitar]

3. Sometimes you just want to be able to annoy the neighbor's chihuahua

This thread explains why, a couple years ago, when I downloaded a dog whistle sample and turned it up real loud to piss off my dog he didn't even do anything.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

While I don't disagree with you that going beyond 20kHz (or 40kHz sampling rate) on recording/reproductive systems is usually an overkill, there are other technical reasons for doing so.

Agreed on all points - especially the chihuahua, which in my next-door neighbor's case is a useless white somthing-oodle lap dog named Snowbell .

But as was pointed out a few times, and probably got buried in this waaaaay too long thread, was that the discussion here is about sample rate theory itself and what it does, and that all other real-world considerations that pull one off of the theoretical numbers were taken as a given.

BTW, Even Snowbell is not that affected since my monitors can't reproduce that well that high anyway. They're designed for humans.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

BTW, Even Snowbell is not that affected since my monitors can't reproduce that well that high anyway. They're designed for humans.

G.

Well, you could get a pair of Yammi MSP-whatever monitors, pair them with an Earthworks and spit out stuff at 40kHz

My apologies for re-stating stuff from earlier pages. I didn't have the patience to read through them all.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, you could get a pair of Yammi MSP-whatever monitors, pair them with an Earthworks and spit out stuff at 40kHz

My apologies for re-stating stuff from earlier pages. I didn't have the patience to read through them all.

No prob. This thread is as long as Snoop Dogg's rap sheet; I can't blame anyone for missing some of the stuff in the middle.

As far as the other gear, I'd rather spend it on a UA 2192 with it's sample rate knob frozen on 44.1

G.

 

[thavva]

This has been in my mind for a long time and need to get your opinions. I guess this question is more for the ones who support 24/44.1 recordings.

I would like to confirm with you guys if the scenario is this. The whole recording project is in 24/44.1. But some loops or sample sounds that i need is in 16/44.1 (i dont use lower than this). So when I bring into my Nuendo project which is 24/44.1, it has to convert the bit rate to 24bit(done in Nuendo itself). My question is this bad(avoid it), ok(can be done) or good(there's no problem in doing that)?

 

[danny.guitar]

Your software shouldn't have to convert the samples to 24-bit. If it were a different sample rate (which is also different playback speed) then it would probably need to or the tracks with different rates would go out of sync.

I've worked with samples that were 16-bit, in projects that were 24-bit and had no problems.

 

[TerraMortim]

You know, to paraphrase Tom "scientology" Cruz from risky business, "Sometimes you just gotta say fuckit and get on with making music".

hehe yeah, that's what's really important!!

 

[TerraMortim]

NO! The pixels equate to the bit depth. The number of bits is the resolution, the sample rate only affects frequency response.

ah yeah, I think I know what your saying. I don't think I got my thoughts straight on that one lol. I would think the ammount of colours would equate more to bit depth. IE 32 bit colour and all that hodge podge...doesn't really matter much though, was just rying to use it for comparison.

 

[TerraMortim]

Now you are talking about the quality of the converter, not the conversion process. Two completely different things.

There is no perfect quality converter however. Perfection doesn't exist in electronics or anything for that matter. Sure, it can come close tho. That's what I meant by degrees of perfection. It's simply a matter of how much less does this one suck ass at capturing shit

 

[TerraMortim]

Amplitude is what the bits do. The more bits, the more dynamic range. (amplitude).

Anything that happens below the nyquist frequency will happen with enough samples to be replicated. The timing issue is affected by jitter more than samplerate.

yes, but the quality is also determined by the sample rate. The differece comes, from what I find, mostly in the effects, mostly compression and reverb. Complex reverbs are much lusher, and compression has more to work with in order to sound less ...digital.

 

[TerraMortim]

So there's no specific problems in having different bit rates in one project? No any drop in quality?

Just to reconfirm. Is it not necessary to convert the bit rate fr 16 to 24?

Thanks for your reply.

to be honest, I like recording my guitars at 16 bit (distorted, or aggressive ones), and I often use bit crushers tastefully and selectrively on things like kick drums that I want to murder people's ears. But most things do sound better at a higher bitrate. ESP vocals.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

yes, but the quality is also determined by the sample rate.

*sigh*. I give up.

The earth is flat, UFOs are from outer space, if you dunk a person under water for long enough and they drown, that proves they are a witch, and higher sample rates provide better limited bandwidth resolution.

And we wonder why this planet is in such trouble.

G.

 

[Farview]

There is no perfect quality converter however. Perfection doesn't exist in electronics or anything for that matter. Sure, it can come close tho. That's what I meant by degrees of perfection. It's simply a matter of how much less does this one suck ass at capturing shit

My point was that we weren't talking about converter quality, we were talking about the math involved. Two separate issues.

 

[Farview]

ah yeah, I think I know what your saying. I don't think I got my thoughts straight on that one lol. I would think the ammount of colours would equate more to bit depth. IE 32 bit colour and all that hodge podge...

Now you're just mixing things up that have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Farview]

yes, but the quality is also determined by the sample rate.

Go back and read SouthsideGlen's long post on the last page. Keep reading it until you understand it.

A couple of posts before that there is a link to Dan Lavery (the guy who designed some of the best converters on the planet) speaking to these points on gearslutz.

I'm not sure what part of this you don't get.

 

[thavva]

Your software shouldn't have to convert the samples to 24-bit. If it were a different sample rate (which is also different playback speed) then it would probably need to or the tracks with different rates would go out of sync.

I've worked with samples that were 16-bit, in projects that were 24-bit and had no problems.

So there's no specific problems in having different bit rates in one project? No any drop in quality?

Just to reconfirm. Is it not necessary to convert the bit rate fr 16 to 24?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So there's no specific problems in having different bit rates in one project? No any drop in quality?

There's no drop in quality. The 24-bit files are left alone, no change there. As for the 16-bit files, they are either converted to 24-bit or they arent. If they arent, no change there. If they are, all that conversion does is stick 8 zeros onto the bottom of the value; no actual change in quality there, either.

Wht you might want to double-check, though, is to make sure the addition of 16-bit files to the project doesn't somehow cause any settings to change in the project itself. For example, make sure it's still default set to save your mixes at 24-bit and that the default setting has not accidently changed to 16-bit or something like that. If so, no big deal, just change it back.

G.