Converting 24bit softsynths to 16bit.

The way I usually use softsynths is by recording them how into my daw, converting them to audio, then put the wave files of the softsynths I recorded onto my MPC to play it on the pads so all my sounds from the track are in the MPC. My question is, am I loosing a significant amount of sonic character to my beats by converting the 24bit softsynths down to 16bit? Or is it a negligible difference? Any thoughts are appreciated.

Cicatrix wrote:The way I usually use softsynths is by recording them how into my daw, converting them to audio, then put the wave files of the softsynths I recorded onto my MPC to play it on the pads so all my sounds from the track are in the MPC. My question is, am I loosing a significant amount of sonic character to my beats by converting the 24bit softsynths down to 16bit? Or is it a negligible difference? Any thoughts are appreciated.

From a technical standpoint, this would only matter if you're digitally transferring the file from a 24 bit environment to a 16 bit platform, like having two devices connected using spdif. There'd be more of a noticable sonic difference when going that route.

But if you're using the analog input/outputs, this is where there'd be some degrading on the sonic quality because the signal must have to past through the ad/da conversion stage on each device that's connected this way.

So do you sample from the daw to the mpc using digital connectivity?

I do not sample the softsynths from the daw with the MPC, no. I mix down the midi notes in the daw to audio. Then I take the audio wav files and edit them how I want them in Adobe Audition and save the sound to 16bit so that I can load them on the MPC. Then I re-record/sequence the sounds in the MPC. Then use spdif for everything I track back into the daw except for my drums, and bass lines that I use the stereo outs connected to a D.I. box and into a preamp, and into the interface. I like this method because the whole song is now in the MPC instead of half the song being in another location. (softsynths). Also I don't have to worry about the extra clutter midi tracks are associated with like track folders and synth tracks. It's all audio tracks now. One track per instrument.
I am trying to weigh out if keeping the softsynths at 24bit is worth sacrificing the way I like to work on a project.

Have you tried comparing the two methods?? Do you hear a difference? Which do you prefer?

The funny thing is, I have compared the difference and to be honest I'm not sure I could tell you which one is which in a blind test. The thing is I don't have the greatest ears, but If somebody else benefited by being able to hear a better quality product I might reconsider.

Cicatrix wrote:I'm not sure I could tell you which one is which in a blind test.

Then do you, homie. Workflow is a very important aspect, and can affect the final outcome way more than a miniscule difference in sound quality. Don't change your workflow for an insignificant improvement in sound quality. Unless your engineer (the guy you are paying to make your sh1t sound dope) recommends it.

I like to think I have pretty good ears, and I can't hear one bit of difference. Especially when you're talking about single instrument tracks from softsynths. Now if you're talking about fully mixed songs (or even an acoustic recording - miked up guitar, piano, etc.), then yes 16 bit vs 24 bit is a more noticeable difference.

Dithering back and forth between your DAW and MP and back to your mastering software can cause issues, so maybe just start at 16bit from the outset and stick with it.

or 8 bit....

It must be a common practice to take 24bit samples and convert them to 16bit for being able to put them on the MPC, and then recording them at 24bit if nothing else than for more headroom that 24bit offers in the final mix, right? What kind of issues can occur from this?

Thanks for all of the advice!

Cicatrix wrote:It must be a common practice to take 24bit samples and convert them to 16bit for being able to put them on the MPC, and then recording them at 24bit if nothing else than for more headroom that 24bit offers in the final mix, right?

Thanks for all of the advice!

If you're going through the ad/da stages of equipment rather than direct digital, then none of this really has any significance since you've done lost most if not all of the sonic characteristics associated with 24 bit recording.

What kind of issues can occur from this?

Aliasing

Ok, I see what you're saying. Thanks for the mentioning of aliasing, I'll read up on it.

Cicatrix wrote:Ok, I see what you're saying. Thanks for the mentioning of aliasing, I'll read up on it.

Maybe I termed that a bit the wrong way.

The mixing of the sampling rate at different levels is what does the aliasing.

Transforming the bit depth from a lesser threshold to one that's greater will always work in your favor. But going from an environment of having more headroom to one with less will not do the same. Maybe do an experiment using the digital I/O between your gear and really hear the difference in what it'll sound like.

That clears it up better. I keep all my recording at 44,100. In the MPC of course, as well as in my DAW. Taking the lower bit depth of 16bit to a greater bit depth environment as in 24bit for recording advantages is what I was sort of getting at. I know once I take a 24bit sample and reduce it to 16bit I never gain what I've lost back if I record it again to 24bit. But just for the sole purpose of mixing, shouldn't it be done in 24 bit regardless? What I mean to say is, say that you had a track that was made up of only samples off vinyl that you took from the MPC. All samples are 16bit, 44,100. Is there a benefit in recording to 24bit, 44,100? Sorry for all the questions I guess I'm still a little murky on it.

Alright, that's cool. So, just curious, is that typically how you take sounds off Reason or does it just depend on what gives at any given moment?
Thanks for the knowledge, good folks here.