16bit vs 24bit [POLL] MPC5000

moyphee wrote:I had a 4000 and without dynamic material that needs it , the higher bit depths are cosmetic for spec junkies. Sample a CD at 24/96 and will sound absolutely no better than the original 16bit CD.

of course it wont! you can't add to what's not there! why would anyone sample a CD at 16bit into a 24bit machine and expect it to sound better?
24bit does not make your 16bit recording sound any different.
are you under the illusion it doe's ?
only if you sampled vynil records or acoustic instruments you would hear a difference.

That's my point there's no advantage of sampling vynil at 24/96. The maximum frequency range and dynamic response isn't even close to CD quality. I've done it and there is no sonic advantage of capturing vynil at 24bit resolution. Vynil is far less dynamically demanding than CD recordings.

moyphee wrote:That's my point there's no advantage of sampling vynil at 24/96. The maximum frequency range and dynamic response isn't even close to CD quality. I've done it and there is no sonic advantage of capturing vynil at 24bit resolution. Vynil is far less dynamically demanding than CD recordings.

you originally said there's no point sampling a 16bit CD at 24bit - i totally agree.
but as for vynil - it depends on many different factors such cartridge frequency response - if your sampling from a dansette why would you need 24bit- but if your using a Linn Sondek with great frequency response there's more timbre to capture.
frequency response and dynamic range are two very different things.
vynil may not be as dynamically demanding than CD, but it has a higher frequency response (depending on the equipment)
but like i said earlier - it all depends on the source of what your recording (you can't polish a turd - you can try but it's messy)
most people recording beats from CD & vynil don't need 24bit - like you say you can't hear much difference - but that does not mean there is not a difference, if your source is of high quality to supply better frequencies.
there are plenty of people who want to make music of such quality.
if you are recording real instruments with good equipment with good frequency response 24bit will sound better...

ok i'm not gonna say any more on this subject i got tons of stuff i sposed to be doing and am spending too much time on this forum.
to each his own and may your god with you

peace

I aware of the difference between FR and DR. There's nothing coming off of vynil that needs 24/96..sorry . We can agree to disagree.

yeah i think that's fair enough

there is no point in recording vinyl samples in 24/96 if you're only to use one or a few samples...but, if you stack up several samples and/or loops in layers and do the entire production(with many tracks) based on sampled stuff only, the 24 bit resolution will give you a lot larger mixing space, so it might just come in handy at mixdown.
What sounds best to is of course up for debate, but I usually prefer 24 bit when multi-tracking in protools and then mix down to 16 bit...it kinda feels like you can fit more tracks and effects in the mix without the whole thing sounding crowded...that fact might as well be relevant to producing on a MPC.

Btw, if you sample in 96KHz, wouldn't that give the time-stretch double the amount of resolution to work with and thereby improve the result when stretching? or is the time-stretch on the 4000 locked to one algorithm no matter the bit depth and resolution?

^^^ Not sure if timestretch will in fact be better since Akai's built in time-stretch isn't that great to start with... but theoretically yes. That is another point people miss out on with this debate. There is more to frequency rate than just the highest frequency it can record, you also have more data to work with. If you simply pitch down a 44k sample 25%, you now have a 33k sample which is no longer hi fi. This wont effect those that simply play back samples and thats it, but anyone using their creativity is messing with pitch and time. I always sample analog sources at 24/96 because of this even though I'm normally tracking at at 48k later. Believe it or not, you can even import higher rate samples than 96k into the Z engine and it will work with them.

I feel the 5K should sample and playback at 24 bit because pro hardware should be able to produce the best quality possible. 16 is good but its a proven fact that sounds in the 15kHz-20kHz range gets truncated during dither. Also if you sample a 16-bit source in 16-bit the resulting sample quality will be less than the original's. I know it wont be so drastic that the average ears may notice but if you listen carefully to upper harmonics of certain instruments 24-bit has its advantages. And not just for sampling, how can you offer a direct to disc recorder that does not record audio in 24-bit in 2008? Thats my $.02.

moyphee wrote:I had a 4000 and without dynamic material that needs it , the higher bit depths are cosmetic for spec junkies. Sample a CD at 24/96 and will sound absolutely no better than the original 16bit CD.

not better than the cd its self but a WHOLE HELL of alot closer to it than sampling at 16bit. I have also done the comparison of the two and was shocked at the sonic quality. Trust me I'd would have much rather sampled at 16bit to retain more ram space for other samples but I cant see sacrafising quality for quantity.

formantuk wrote:of course it wont! you can't add to what's not there! why would anyone sample a CD at 16bit into a 24bit machine and expect it to sound better?
24bit does not make your 16bit recording sound any different.
are you under the illusion it doe's ?
only if you sampled vynil records or acoustic instruments you would hear a difference.

like I said the idea is not to get it to sound better but to capture as much of the elements of a sample as possible

If you all wanted a 24 bit sampler...why are most of you still using MPC 2000XLs?

Ive got an mpc4000 (24bit), an s900, and an s1000. By spec the 4000 has the "best quality". But why dont I sample into it? Because it just doesnt sound as good as when I sample into the other 2 lesser spec samplers. It produces a very accurate representation of the sound (a bit harsh, but probably very accurate), but just doesnt sound as pleasant as the other 2, to me for the sound I like.

I dont think Akai need a 24bit sampler. I think people should appreciate that its probably just the most enjoyable way to make music. I dont think its all about specs. Working on an mpc is pure and simple, a lot of fun! By spec working on a computer you can do a lot more. I always hear people saying that mpc's cant do anything that you can do on a computer. Buy one, give it 12 months. Im sure that like me, you only use the computer when you absolutely have to. Ive got Logic. It very functional but I dont have fun using it.

So many people knock Akai on this site. I feel pretty grateful that they are still around and hope they stay around. I always want to be able to buy an mpc. To me its like an instrument. It cant do everything, and I dont want it to. I think that what it does do is fantastic. It has character.

if the 5000 would have recorded 24 bit I would have picked it up.....but I guess I ll use battery and my mpc as a controller.. if I want 24 bit


word!

That is why all these companies exist...to provide you with options. 24 bit in a drum machine/phrase sampler? Keep that ish away from me....I am still hoping for a 12 bit MPC