16 or 24 bit sampling Roll Call!?

SimonInAustralia wrote:

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.

24 bitrate would provide more detail than 16 bitrate.

SimonInAustralia wrote: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.

That's what I did with the same equipments, and there was difference between 16bit and 24 bit. I don't think I have exceptionally good ears, and equipments I use is all consumer market grade stuff.
But other factor here was, my audio interface is 24 bit / 92KHz native (M-Audio Quattro) so if I record with 16bit 44.1KHz, then it would not record very well because my computer or M-Audio Quattro has to downconvert in real time, which result in worse than recording with 16bit / 44.1KHz audio interface.
I use 24 bit / 48KHz, but 48 x 2 = 92, so I think it is easy for PC or Quattro to provide 24 bit / 48KHz audio. I haven't tried 24 bit / 96KHz yet.
I'm not taking about only the theory, I'm taking about it from my experience with ripping vinyls. You should try it yourself, because it may not make much difference with your equipment.

JVC wrote:24 bitrate would provide more detail than 16 bitrate.

It is actually referred to as bit depth, not bit rate.

If that extra bit depth, and additional available detail, was used to represent the same dynamic range, then it would provide more a more detailed representation of the signal.

But I don't think it does, the extra bits are used to give an extended dynamic range, not more detail within the same dynamic range.

It can provide more detail in the low level signals, due to the extended dynamic range, but with vinyl, I am not sure that you are going to have anything that low, as it is all going to be surface noise.

And yes, the only way would be to do side by side blind listening tests, not sure I have the interest and time to take it that far.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:24 bitrate would provide more detail than 16 bitrate.

It is actually referred to as bit depth, not bit rate.

You are right, I've been using a wrong word. I should've said bit depth rather.

SimonInAustralia wrote: If that extra bit depth, and additional available detail, was used to represent the same dynamic range, then it would provide more a more detailed representation of the signal.
But I don't think it does, the extra bits are used to give an extended dynamic range, not more detail within the same dynamic range.

I'm not sure I understand, but 24 bit depth provides more dynamic range than 16 bit range.
From Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

In basic implementations, variations in bit depth primarily affect the noise level from quantization error—thus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and dynamic range.

SimonInAustralia wrote:It can provide more detail in the low level signals, due to the extended dynamic range, but with vinyl, I am not sure that you are going to have anything that low, as it is all going to be surface noise.

Good that you mentioned about surface noise. When I recorded vinyls in 24 bit, surface noise was much less apparent. Plus, it sounded better and much less fatiguing to my ears. After I found that out, there was no turning back. This difference might to with my USB audio interface than 24 bit depth and rate though, but there was audible differences. I don't have exceptionaly good ears, I'm no Quincy Jones!

SimonInAustralia wrote:And yes, the only way would be to do side by side blind listening tests, not sure I have the interest and time to take it that far.

Umm, I don't think the side by side blind listening tests would take a lot of time though. My recording gears are, ah, very modest, so I always try to find the settings that give me the best result.
But, it is really your choice whether to use 24 bit or 16 bit.

not sure if this translates as much to bit depth as to sample rate, but we did quite a bit of extensive testing at very high sample rates on cards that say they supported them.

turns out there is often another bottleneck somewhere, or they just don't actually support the rate at all.

so just cause a device says it is recording at 96k, it could actually be upsampling a lower rate signal. every device in the chain has to be able to handle those extreme rates, and a lot of consumer/prosumer stuff does not.

just keep that in mind - run your own tests or do what you like but dont always believe the marketing on the box.

JVC wrote:

SimonInAustralia wrote: If that extra bit depth, and additional available detail, was used to represent the same dynamic range, then it would provide more a more detailed representation of the signal.
But I don't think it does, the extra bits are used to give an extended dynamic range, not more detail within the same dynamic range.

I'm not sure I understand, but 24 bit depth provides more dynamic range than 16 bit range.
From Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

Yes, it increases the dynamic range, but not the detail within the same dynamic range.

The extra 8 bits are used to increase the dynamic range from 96dB to a theoretical 144dB.

This is not increasing detail within the same dynamic range, that stays the same, it is increasing the range overall.

A vinyl record gives probably 50-55dB of dynamic range.

If recorded at a good strong level to 16 bit, it should be enough above the -96dB noise floor of the 16 bit format, that moving to the 144dB dynamic range of 24 bit shouldn't really make any difference.

If you are not recording a good strong signal into a 16 bit format, and your vinyl noise floor is down closer to the 16 bit noise floor, then yes, I can see that moving to 24 bit might sound smoother in the lower level signals and vinyl surface noise.


The time and effort issue for me is in sourcing a decent quality turntable and preamp to perform the test with, not the time taken to put a record on and press record. I am not really that interested.

But if you want to record some side by side examples of 16 vs 24 bit recordings, I would take the time to listen and change my opinion if they do sound different.

tapedeck wrote:not sure if this translates as much to bit depth as to sample rate, but we did quite a bit of extensive testing at very high sample rates on cards that say they supported them.

turns out there is often another bottleneck somewhere, or they just don't actually support the rate at all.

so just cause a device says it is recording at 96k, it could actually be upsampling a lower rate signal. every device in the chain has to be able to handle those extreme rates, and a lot of consumer/prosumer stuff does not.

just keep that in mind - run your own tests or do what you like but dont always believe the marketing on the box.

Good info. (Do you have the list of products you tested?) It reminds me of cheap digital cameras' marketing ploy (a lot pixels per pics with crap lens and CCD.)

And, this ...

... just keep that in mind - run your own tests or do what you like but dont always believe the marketing on the box.

True!

tapedeck wrote:not sure if this translates as much to bit depth as to sample rate, but we did quite a bit of extensive testing at very high sample rates on cards that say they supported them.

I would believe that an increase in sample rate should make it sound smoother/better, but not bit depth.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:

SimonInAustralia wrote: If that extra bit depth, and additional available detail, was used to represent the same dynamic range, then it would provide more a more detailed representation of the signal.
But I don't think it does, the extra bits are used to give an extended dynamic range, not more detail within the same dynamic range.

I'm not sure I understand, but 24 bit depth provides more dynamic range than 16 bit range.
From Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

Yes, it increases the dynamic range, but not the detail within the same dynamic range.

The extra 8 bits are used to increase the dynamic range from 96dB to a theoretical 144dB.

This is not increasing detail within the same dynamic range, that stays the same, it is increasing the range overall.

A vinyl record gives probably 50-55dB of dynamic range.

If recorded at a good strong level to 16 bit, it should be enough above the -96dB noise floor of the 16 bit format, that moving to the 144dB dynamic range of 24 bit shouldn't really make any difference.

If you are not recording a good strong signal into a 16 bit format, and your vinyl noise floor is down closer to the 16 bit noise floor, then yes, I can see that moving to 24 bit might sound smoother in the lower level signals and vinyl surface noise.

The time and effort issue for me is in sourcing a decent quality turntable and preamp to perform the test with, not the time taken to put a record on and press record. I am not really that interested.

But if you want to record some side by side examples of 16 vs 24 bit recordings, I would take the time to listen and change my opinion if they do sound different.

I'm not sure why you have to say theoretical 144dB.

Yes, vinyl records' dynamic range is lower than CD due to noise floor, but to be able to capture sound accurately from any analog sound source, it is better to have more bit depth and bit rate.

Let's say that one particular vinyl record gives 55dB of dynamic range and rip that record in 12 bit rate (which provide more than 66dB signal to noise ratio.) I'm pretty sure that I can differentiate between vinyl and that 12 bit rate PCM audio.

And,

SimonInAustralia wrote:...
If you are not recording a good strong signal into a 16 bit format, and your vinyl noise floor is down closer to the 16 bit noise floor, then yes, I can see that moving to 24 bit might sound smoother in the lower level signals and vinyl surface noise.

Let me just say that I adjust signal level before I rip vinyls, a**l-retentively. Like I said before, I always try to have the best result with my modest gears.

I thought you record, say, vocal or from mic, or from line-in (like guitar, etc.) If that's the case, extra head room that 24 bit depth provide would definitely give you a benefit to your mix.
You don't have to use vinyl record to test it out, or I thought.

All I wanted to say was that I get better result with 24 bit depth recordings. I didn't think it was a hard thing to believe.

JVC wrote:I'm not sure I understand, but 24 bit depth provides more dynamic range than 16 bit range.
From Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

JVC wrote:I'm not sure why you have to say theoretical 144dB.

From the wiki you linked to above...

24-bit digital audio has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144 dB, compared to 96 dB for 16-bit; however, as of 2007 digital audio converter technology is limited to a SNR of about 124 dB (21-bit) because of real-world limitations in integrated circuit design. Still, this approximately matches the performance of the human auditory system.

JVC wrote:Let's say that one particular vinyl record gives 55dB of dynamic range and rip that record in 12 bit rate (which provide more than 66dB signal to noise ratio.) I'm pretty sure that I can differentiate between vinyl and that 12 bit rate PCM audio.

12 bit might be pushing it, it probably depends on how linear those 12 bits are, whether they are weighted towards the MSB or not, leaving less detail at the LSB.

And that would have to be at the same sample rate, 48kHz for example, not the 22-26kHz sample rates that are part of the vintage 12 bit sampler sound.

I think that the 96kHz dynamic range is sufficient to capture the 50-55kHz dynamic range of vinyl, and down into the vinyl noise floor.

Like I said, I am going to have to hear some direct comparisons before I will believe it.

JVC wrote:All I wanted to say was that I get better result with 24 bit depth recordings. I didn't think it was a hard thing to believe.

I believe that you believe it, I need to hear it before I will believe it.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:I'm not sure I understand, but 24 bit depth provides more dynamic range than 16 bit range.
From Wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

JVC wrote:I'm not sure why you have to say theoretical 144dB.

From the wiki you linked to above...

24-bit digital audio has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144 dB, compared to 96 dB for 16-bit; however, as of 2007 digital audio converter technology is limited to a SNR of about 124 dB (21-bit) because of real-world limitations in integrated circuit design. Still, this approximately matches the performance of the human auditory system.

OK, I see, but it is still about 124dB, compared to 96dB.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:Let's say that one particular vinyl record gives 55dB of dynamic range and rip that record in 12 bit rate (which provide more than 66dB signal to noise ratio.) I'm pretty sure that I can differentiate between vinyl and that 12 bit rate PCM audio.

12 bit might be pushing it, it probably depends on how linear those 12 bits are, whether they are weighted towards the MSB or not, leaving less detail at the LSB.

And that would have to be at the same sample rate, 48kHz for example, not the 22-26kHz sample rates that are part of the vintage 12 bit sampler sound.

I think that the 96kHz dynamic range is sufficient to capture the 50-55kHz dynamic range of vinyl, and down into the vinyl noise floor.

Like I said, I am going to have to hear some direct comparisons before I will believe it.

JVC wrote:All I wanted to say was that I get better result with 24 bit depth recordings. I didn't think it was a hard thing to believe.

I believe that you believe it, I need to hear it before I will believe it.

I don't think I'll provide examples. I'm not that interested to prove my point. You should run test on your system, and it doesn't have to be vinyl record rip. I think that on my USB audio interface, 16bit sampling may not work well.
And, maybe there are other reasons why 24 bit makes noticeable difference on my system.
I'm done here.

16 bit.

mpc1000 is 16 bit in.. what a Pain it would be to record everything twice haha

16 bit. And according to this thread, I have supernatural recording skills

Ill-Green wrote:16 bit. And according to this thread, I have supernatural recording skills

We expect no less from the Mega Brujo.

I've been recording at 24/48 since 2003. Even a single core Pentium 4 from that era could handle massive track counts at 24 bit.

Coz wrote:I've been recording at 24/48 since 2003. Even a single core Pentium 4 from that era could handle massive track counts at 24 bit.

Yeah that's an interesting point. I used to get decent track count/plugs on a p4 with a $25USD Soundblaster. PCI/PCI/e can really close the gaps.

I've been rendering 16 bit due to 2500/1000/Xl and some older iOS apps that only do 16 bit. But I think I'll be doing more 24/48, 96 is overkill unless you're engineering a pop major label thing really.

Granted you're going to dither to 16 bit PCM at some point, but 4K, ITB and so on, may as well use 24 bit and get as much extra clarity and separation as possible prior to the dithering. But strictly 16 bit will still result in solid tracks if your gear has that limit.