Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 2 of 4 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: 16 Bit vs 24 Bit Audio
Post #11 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Oct. 07 2010, 8:56 PM
Former Member










i want a brain!


TinaM
Contact Information:  TinaM

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #12 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 07 2010, 9:10 PM

No avatar chosen




Group: Members
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 1.47

Offline
The short answer is - unless or until you find that it is not sounding the way you want - 16 bit 44,100k will do the job.
All of the other stuff we are talking about can improve a mix OR really screw it up.  
So, to get good everyday recordings standard 16 by 44,100 work great!  In general, the less you do to a mix past re-balancing the volumes and panning is nuance or more to the mastering side of recording.
Contact Information:  bax3

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #13 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 07 2010, 9:17 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2923
Joined: Jan. 2009

Member Rating: 1.67

Offline
"Bang bang Baxwell's sivler hammer....."
:laugh:
Contact Information:  TonyR

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #14 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 07 2010, 9:17 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: Oct. 2010

Member Rating: None

Offline
I would have to agree with bax... everything I have read so far about converting from one bit-depth to another involves some form of dithering (as Paco mentioned) and therefore its possible for the integrity of the original track to be degraded by the conversion process.
Contact Information:  bbrown

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #15 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 12:08 AM
dannyraymilligan

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Sep. 2010

Member Rating: 1.85

Offline
Did audio techs and home recording enthusiasts have to worry about all this back in the days of analog???

OY VEY!!!!
Contact Information:  dannyraymilligan

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #16 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 12:49 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2923
Joined: Jan. 2009

Member Rating: 1.67

Offline
Aye, Danny. Stick on a bit of Leadbelly or Ottlie Patterson, Motown....
Still sounds magical:-)
Contact Information:  TonyR

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #17 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 3:02 AM

No avatar chosen




Group: Members
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 1.47

Offline
I think we worry about all this technical stuff because now we have the capacity to mess with it.  You can do some great stuff with digital recording and I love it -HOWEVER,
With analog, you went for the performance, that was the first measure of the recording and should still be!  Think about a recording session in about 1930: everyone is in one room and the recording is literally cut into the record as the performance is done.  You get it right or you do it again.  
I was a performer in the late 50's and 60's.  We went to studios and paid good money to record on mics that were not as "good" as today's, with 2 tracks if we were lucky - some of that stuff sounds great!  Not pristine like a digital, but the performance is there and if it wasn't there, then little or nothing we could do about it, except record it again.
All that said - I still love what I can do with NTrack to make a "professional" sounding recording.
Bax
Contact Information:  bax3

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #18 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 3:51 AM
Yes, that is an AXE in my head, So What?
Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 1420
Joined: Apr. 2008

Member Rating: 1.91

Offline
Quote: (TinaM @ Oct. 07 2010, 1:56 PM)

i want a brain!


TinaM

You can have mine, I'm getting a new one next week that can,

A: Drink without getting a hangover.
B: Remember.
C: Know how to change the bobbin on the weed whacker.
D: Has interchangeable parts that can be upgraded.


PACO :whistle:

M-Audio 49 Keys/Alesis Pad/Yamaha-DTX532K
Mic/Apex/435&180/AT2020
Line 6/UX2/Relay-G30
N.I./Komplete Audio 6/Guitar Rig 5/Pro
Fender 60th Anniversary LE American Stratocaster/Aztec Gold
Gibson Les Paul 120th Anniversary/MinETune/Champagne Grey
Gibson SG 120th Anniversary/MinETune/Coco Brwn/Earvana Nut
Jackson Dinky/DK2M/Trans-Blue/Floyd Rose/Earvana Nut
Fender 300CE/Electric/Acoustic/Quilt Maple/Transparent Blue
Fender Squire Bass/Black/Tortoise Grey PG/EMG-JP4/18V
-
"Never put your head up your ass without a hat, otherwise you'll look like a S.H.I.T head"
-P. Skiinoff '2008
Contact Information:  Paco572

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #19 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:31 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Quote: (bbrown @ Oct. 07 2010, 2:17 PM)

I would have to agree with bax... everything I have read so far about converting from one bit-depth to another involves some form of dithering (as Paco mentioned) and therefore its possible for the integrity of the original track to be degraded by the conversion process.

Only when going from higher to lower.
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #20
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 4:38 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Quote: (dannyraymilligan @ Oct. 07 2010, 5:08 PM)

Did audio techs and home recording enthusiasts have to worry about all this back in the days of analog???

OY VEY!!!!

Yes - tape alignment!  Also, gain structure, tape degradation, wobble, spindle fold and mutilation...

I'm not sure the discussion up to this point addressed my original concern.  Even if you record at 16 bits, when the DAW processes it, it's at a much higher bit rate, e.g., 64 bits.  Why?  This is needed because so many computations are going on that the numbers quickly get really big.  And all of those numbers represent audio information.  Now, imagine you have info at 64 bits going into a plugin that truncates everything after 16 bits.  All of that other information is just lost.  This results in degradation in audio.  And it is totally audible.  I think it was MDA who had a plugin that tracked the actual bits used in other plugins.  

In sum: you may be recording at 16 bits, but the calculations in the program use a much longer bit rate, to preserve the audio.  If no calculations were done ever with the signal as it came in right after AD conversion, it wouldn't matter, but lots of calculations are done, and hence it matters if a 16 bit bottleneck is inserted in the middle of them.
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
36 replies since Oct. 07 2010, 6:36 AM
Page 2 of 4 Skip to Page:

© 2014 n-Track Software
Powered by iF 1.0.1 © 2006 ikonForums