16 or 24 bit sampling Roll Call!?

Which one do u use and why!??

im usually 16-bit but decided to go 24-bit.Im interested to see what everyone else is using.

post below & let the games begin.

24-bit, to allow for more headroom for mixing. At least that's what I read it would do. I havent tested it for myself.

What's your reason why?

Always 24 bit. There is no reason to record 16 bit period.

24 bit... Why do I? Probably similar reasons you do 16 bit instead of 8 or 12 bit...

Now if you want more technical answer...

You get about 20dB more headroom with 24bits without any increase in the apparent system noise over the 16bit.

If you record a lot of analog, the noise floor is almost always defined by the ambient room noise rather than the digital system noise, so you can usually work with reasonable headroom margins at 16bit, while maintaining the ambient noise floor comfortably above the system noise floor. (In other words, the dynamic range of the source recordings is typically far less than the capability of a 16-bit recording system. )

If you record a lot of digital signals, such as electrical instruments, the noise floor is often far lower than that possible when recording with microphones and analog in a home studio, so the dynamic range of a 16-bit system may start to become a limitation.

The bottom line is, if YOU are happy with the results YOU get with 16bit, there may be no benefit in YOU changing to 24.

IMHO, I can see no negative side to recording at 24-bit, and only positive benefits...

MPCTNT wrote:...
The bottom line is, if YOU are happy with the results YOU get with 16bit, there may be no benefit in YOU changing to 24.

IMHO, I can see no negative side to recording at 24-bit, and only positive benefits...

ONLY negative side of recording at 24-bit, instead of lower bit-rate is that, it takes more RAM space and data storage. If your computer can record and play in 24-bit audio, there is absolutely no reason to use 16-bit rate, unless you have to.
You will NOT get vintage sampler sounding output by merely using 16-bitrate (remember, CD audio is in PCM 16-bitrate 44.1KHz stereo audio format, and so is Akai S1000.)
I think effects in DAW would work better with 24bitrate samples than 16 bit samples too. So, even if you are looking for "vintage" sound, actually regardless of your goal, it would be beneficial to use 24bitrate, or highest bitrate you can use.

(I think bitrate is somehow misunderstood, like, many people seem to think that lower bitrate = vintage sampler sound. No, not really...)

I can give you very specific example, from my own experience:

I used to rip songs (songs that are not available only vinyl, or that reissue itself is hard to get) from my record collection. I used to rip in 16bit. Then, I upgraded my computer and hard drive, so I started to use 24 bitrate to rip from vinyls. I can tell you that 24bit recording sounds great (sounds "smooth"), whereas 16bit rip sounds a bit hush to my ears. I can tell the deference with my affordable SONY MDR-V6 headphone.

I'd rip my vinyl in 24 bitrate, then I'd convert to 16 bitrate, if I have to. The result is better than ripping vinyl in 16 bitrate from the beginning.

JVC wrote:ONLY negative side of recording at 24-bit, instead of lower bit-rate is that, it takes more RAM space and data storage. If your computer can record and play in 24-bit audio, there is absolutely no reason to use 16-bit rate, unless you have to.

+1

I never really thought about it before but im definitely going to start recording in 24bit. I've been recording in at 16bit up to this point

I record a bunch of synths in so I should probably be doing this already. My computer can definitely handle it.

Here's an article that pretty much sums up this thread:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/qa0608_2.htm

TommyTench wrote:Here's an article that pretty much sums up this thread:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/qa0608_2.htm

Yes, and that the article was written 5 years ago (2008), and now (2013), many of us have computers that can handle 24 bitrate easily and have larger data storage options than 5 years ago, there is even less reason to stick with 16 bitrate and lower Hz today.

Besides headroom and such, I would only samples at 16bit if I plan to move those samples back to my 2KXL.

Is there any flaw in that thought?

legacy813 wrote:Besides headroom and such, I would only samples at 16bit if I plan to move those samples back to my 2KXL.

Is there any flaw in that thought?

I think that's logical, but you can always down convert audio files later for your 2000XL. Maybe you might want to use 24 bit sample later, and you won't have to record the same sample again.
And, 24 bit sounds better than 16 bit, as far as I can tell (see my post above). It is your call. You should test the result yourself whether or not it is the case for you.

JVC wrote:And, 24 bit sounds better than 16 bit, as far as I can tell (see my post above).

Is it possible for 24 bit to sound better than 16 bit, in terms of just the actual bit depth?

It gives you more headroom, and can better represent low level signals, but isn't the resolution between bits the same, and therefore is not going to sound smoother on 24 bit than 16 bit?

I thought that the extra bits give more dynamic range, not increased detail within the same dynamic range.

Would have to hear side by side 16 vs 24 bit recordings, of exactly the same material, on exactly the same audio hardware/turntable/preamp/etc., recorded at the same session, before I would believe that there is really a difference.