Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 4 of 4 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: 16 Bit vs 24 Bit Audio
Post #31 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 6:48 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Entirely agree, Bax.  I try hard to do things that can actually be played, even though I'm often just step-programming keys, or whatever.  

Tony - Eno plays keys, and guitar, doesn't he?   Here Come the Warm Jets was one of the most important albums for my in my salad days.  Still a great work.
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #32 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 08 2010, 7:55 PM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2923
Joined: Jan. 2009

Member Rating: 1.67

Offline
I agree, too. My life long drummer mate, sadly no longer with us, hated anything to do with drum machines, but would insist that programming should reflect what can actually be done - I took that on board.
I quite like Eno's playing but he doesn't. He doesn't regard it as his thing.
Contact Information:  TonyR

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #33 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 09 2010, 12:21 AM
dannyraymilligan

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 395
Joined: Sep. 2010

Member Rating: 1.85

Offline
I haven't a clue who brian eno is, lol, but I will tell you one thing, I think music has become too polished, and that's also bad for us home musicians. We're trying to compete with Evanescence and the like, huge theatrical orchestrations, etc. They spend MILLIONS on making a record, and most of us spend TIME.

Don't get me wrong, I think each one of us is obligated to make the best product we can, but when it comes down to it, what is music? IT'S ENTERTAINMENT. Some of the most beautiful songs in history were done in a few hours inside a ratty old garage studio, and yet every human being on earth knows them by heart. Sit down sometime and really listen to Simon & Garfunkel do "Bridge Over Troubled Water". The Entire Hotel California Album was done in less than two months, and Glenn Frey said most of that was spent partying... now, I find myself obsessing that my music isn't on a production footing that is equal with someone like Creed or Evanescence, when the truth is that I have the technology available to me right now to do BETTER than anyone did back in the 50's, 60's or even most of the 70's. If I render each track down once I'm happy with it, I can easily run 24 tracks on this computer, pristine digital. John, Paul, Ringo and George didn't have anywhere close to that.

But I'm not competing with the Beatles, am I? LOL! When someone listens to a song I record now, they compare it against Alice In Chains, or Creed, or Evanescence, or other modern musicians, and needless to say, my output doesn't measure up to theirs.

I will say this, however: I know that it can measure up, if I work at it hard enough, because I listen to what you others do with yours, and much of your work is on a par with the pros, so that gives me hope :)
Contact Information:  dannyraymilligan

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #34 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 09 2010, 12:45 AM

No avatar chosen




Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 1.47

Offline
Danny,  I am not sure that we need to be competing whit the "big Money productions." I shall continue to maintain that it is the performance that matters.  listen to what Johnny Cash did when he took some of the hard metal songs and did them with an acoustic in his home studio, while he was dying.
You give several examples of the music winning out over the technology - go with that!  If I somehow end up with my radio tuned to a "country" station I am blown away with the interchangeability of the music - the words are different but the approach to the music is uniform in it's over-production. I'm pretty sure it's the same in every genre.
Contact Information:  bax3

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #35 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 09 2010, 1:17 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2923
Joined: Jan. 2009

Member Rating: 1.67

Offline
There's a moto that I can't quite remember, it goes something like; Song, Sound, ___, ?
Contact Information:  TonyR

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #36 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 09 2010, 1:53 AM

No avatar chosen




Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 1.47

Offline
I don't know the quote - could the other word be soul?  A good friend of mine and a great song writer wrote, "Sing for the song, boy . . ."
Contact Information:  bax3

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #37
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Oct. 13 2010, 1:36 AM

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 3152
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 1.34

Offline
So much plain sideways almost right but not quite information in one thread....

Here we go...

Bit depth (not bit rate as is used in MP3s) is a measure of dynamic range. Not bandwidth. So yes, 16 bit has a dynamic range of 96db and 24 bit 124db. Nick was the most correct in his post. The benefit here is that you A) don't need to record things as hot to get great resolution B) Differences in dynamics are more accurate as you have more "steps" with which to measure volume. These additional "steps" are an advantage at mix time too. The final mix is a complex calculation of everything in the project. 16 bit is like doing your taxes by 10 dollar increments rather then to the actual cents. At the end of all the tax calculations, you'll be much more accurate had you used all those pesky decimals for cents.

Sample rate: sample rate simply determines the maximum frequency you can record. The Nyquist theorum states that at a given sample rate, the highest frequency that can be recorded is one half the sample rate itself. Therefore, in a perfect converter, at 44.1 khz, the maximum frequency you can record is 22.05khz which is well above what a human can hear. The problem is finding a perfect converter. Converters have filtering on the high end and crappy filters can effect frequencies much lower that ARE in the audible spectrum. The advantage to higher sample rates, especially on less than great gear, is that any filtering that happens can be done way up in the inaudible spectrum and any lower frequencies effected by the filter are still well above the audible range. A great 44.1khz converter will still sound better than a crappy 96khz converter.... but recording at 96khz can help make some crappy converters sound less crappy.

Dither: I won't get into the theory, but will get into the rules. Dither is necessary when truncating from any FIXED bit depth source to a lower fixed bit depth format. Therefor dithering when going to MP3 is worthless as it is not a fixed bit depth format. Dither when going to a 16 bit wav/FLAC... otherwise forget it. You can dither coming out of the 32 bit mix buss to 24 bit, but it is hardly worth it as any truncation artifacts are well below the threshold of hearing.
Contact Information:  Bubbagump

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

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