16 or 24 bit sampling Roll Call!?

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

well if your sampler only records at 12 bits, or 16 bits, then you CANT record at 24 bit, mate.

peeping tom wrote:

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

well if your sampler only records at 12 bits, or 16 bits, then you CANT record at 24 bit, mate.

well if your sampler only records at 12 bits, or 16 bits, then you are talking about it in the wrong section of the forums, mate.

wow, you've actually taken "12 bits" as literal as one could take it.

do you feel better now, bro?

for Simon, because its clear he has special needs..........

if your sampler only records in 12 bit resolution, or 16 bit resolution, then you cannot possibly record samples into your hardware sampler at 24 bit resolution.

IS THAT BETTER MUMMY??????

Now Simon, when people refer to a samplers resolution, they use the term "bits" or "bit" so a SP 1200 would be also known as a "12 bit" sampler.

common knowledge i thought..........

All good if you are talking about samplers other than MPC Software.

This is the MPC Software section of the forums, so questions and discussion about bit depth when sampling, in here, would most likely relate to that particular sampler, and be restricted to either 16 or 24 bit, as those are the only options in this particular sampler.

Talk about special needs!

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.

A little further information/discussion regarding sound quality of 16 bit vs 24 bit recording...

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-v ... h-exploded

So, 24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.

So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques (see 3 below), perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a percievable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands).

DAM! Look what i started LOL.EFF That,im going back to 4-tracks and strickly tape FLUCK COMPUTERS.

I've just realized that we may be discussing two different things (well, a bit different)

I am not saying that I can tell apart between 16 bit depth audio sound and 24 bit depth audio in general. I've been stating that I get better result when recording with 24 bit depth, when I rip vinyls, and that fact alone is convincing enough for me to use 24 bit sample when it is available. And I test it with my old M-Audio Quattro, so if I compared it with DAT deck, it is quite possible that DAT deck might sound better, because I've been hearing that DAT sounds good (it is not only about bit rate and bit depth).

I record in 24 bit depth, instead of 16 bit depth, because recording in 24 bit depth provide me better result (it was clearly better), which I tested with my equipment many times.
When I convert that 24 bit audio file to a 16 bit audio file on my computer, those two audio files doesn't sound that different (this is what I meant by I get better result by recording audio in 24 bit.)
I enjoy CDs, which are obviously in 16 bit / 44.1KHz audio format (but I've also heard that mastering audio CD is not easy job, to make sound more "organic", less "digital".)

But if don't record from analog source, say, from vinyls, guitar, mic, analog synth (or any audio source that require to use A/D converter) maybe this is not relevant to you.

I don't know if I can tell apart between properly mastered 24 bit audio file and 16 bit audio file. But for other reasons, I think it is totally better off to use 24 bit audio recording option when you can use it.

This is a quote from the same person you quoted (from the same thread, Page 2);

...
If transferring a vinyl to digital, there may be some merit in using 24bit, for the same reason as using 24bit when recording in a studio. 24bit gives you tons of headroom as usually you try to set peak levels in 24bit to -18dB (-22dB is also a good peak level). This gives you plenty of space for any transient 'overs' which you might get using 16bit. You can always dither back down to 16bit when you're done or leave it at 24bit if storage space is not an issue.

optik415 wrote:DAM! Look what i started LOL.EFF That,im going back to 4-tracks and strickly tape FLUCK COMPUTERS.

LOL!
I don't miss cassette tapes much (other than nostalgic reasons), but open reel tapes sound great!
I think recording with digital format is great, but with digital format, signal never degrade gracefully, like tapes.

JVC wrote:I've just realized that we may be discussing two different things (well, a bit different)
I am not saying that I can tell apart between 16 bit depth audio sound and 24 bit depth audio in general.

I must have comprehension problems then...

JVC wrote:

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.

JVC wrote:And I test it with my old M-Audio Quattro, so if I compared it with DAT deck, it is quite possible that DAT deck might sound better, because I've been hearing that DAT sounds good (it is not only about bit rate and bit depth).

DAT is just a 44.1/48 kHz 16 bit digital tape format, pretty much just CD on tape, or the same as recording into a DAW at those sample rates and bit depth, it only sounds as good as the particular analogue input/output and AD/DA circuitry used, it doesn't sound good in any special way just because it is DAT.

JVC wrote:This is a quote from the same person you quoted (from the same thread, Page 2);

No, you don't usually set peak levels in 24 bit to -18dBFS, you might set 0VU on an analogue meter to -18dBFS on the digital meter, the particular dBFS level depending on what you are doing, that is average, not peak.

Metatron72 wrote:

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

We expect no less from the Mega Brujo.

Meta! Whats up!!

My pops calls me that too, or witch doctor or the warlock, you know family love

I'm pretty sure that many members here are "watching" this thread with popcorn on their hands...

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:I've just realized that we may be discussing two different things (well, a bit different)
I am not saying that I can tell apart between 16 bit depth audio sound and 24 bit depth audio in general.

I must have comprehension problems then...

I think you do. I've been saying that the end result is better with recording with 24 bit, for me.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:

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.

JVC wrote:And I test it with my old M-Audio Quattro, so if I compared it with DAT deck, it is quite possible that DAT deck might sound better, because I've been hearing that DAT sounds good (it is not only about bit rate and bit depth).

DAT is just a 44.1/48 kHz 16 bit digital tape format, pretty much just CD on tape, or the same as recording into a DAW at those sample rates and bit depth, it only sounds as good as the particular analogue input/output and AD/DA circuitry used, it doesn't sound good in any special way just because it is DAT.

Now you are stating obvious. I do understand that. You are the one who caught up with all the technical terms. AD/DA circuitry plays big role how it sounds, that is what I meant by "it is not only about bit rate and bit depth."

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:This is a quote from the same person you quoted (from the same thread, Page 2);

No, you don't usually set peak levels in 24 bit to -18dBFS, you set 0VU on an analogue meter to -18dBFS on the digital meter, that is average, not peak.

Already understood. But I see bit depth as resolution (for 24 bit, it gives more resolution than human ears can provide), rather than extra dynamic range. Peak levels does not change whether I record in 16 bit or 24 bit.

Again, if you don't record from analog source, and you cannot even test out yourself easily, I'm not sure I'll ever get it. You can go with your theories, I'll go with my ears and testing (and some theories.)

JVC wrote:Now you are stating obvious. I do understand that. You are the one who caught up with all the technical terms. AD/DA circuitry plays big role how it sounds, that is what I meant by "it is not only about bit rate and bit depth."

You don't understand that, you said that DAT might sound better than a particular audio interface, because you have been hearing that DAT sounds good.

DAT doesn't sound good, it sounds exactly the same as any other digital format at the same resolution.

JVC wrote:But I see bit depth as resolution (for 24 bit, it gives more resolution than human ears can provide), rather than extra dynamic range.

This is incorrect.

You are basing your theories on a misunderstanding of how it actually works.

If you are not interested in learning what is actually happening, then you are never going to understand.

The extra bits give increased dynamic range, that is how it works, to say that it doesn't, when the facts are in front of you, is just being ignorant.

JVC wrote:But I see bit depth as resolution (for 24 bit, it gives more resolution than human ears can provide), rather than extra dynamic range. Peak levels does not change whether I record in 16 bit or 24 bit.

Yes, peak level does not change, you get increased dynamic range, so more level at the bottom of the scale, instead of at the peak.

You do not get increased resolution within the same dynamic range, the extra bits increase the available dynamic range, not the resolution.

JVC wrote:You can go with your theories, I'll go with my ears and testing (and some theories.)

Your incorrect theories, based on a misunderstanding of the technical aspects, are possibly clouding your judgement when testing with your ears.

That is why I asked if you can post examples of side by side recordings, which do not identify which recording is which bit depth, so we can do a blind test to see if one sounds better than the other.

SimonInAustralia wrote:Yes, peak level does not change, you get increased dynamic range, so more level at the bottom of the scale, instead of at the peak.

this is the best way to demonstrate the effect of bit-depth to someone....play a recording with really quiet passages.

yall be nice to each other.

simon yer like the forum batman.
yer right a lot but its like the joker got gotham turned against you.

fight the good fight tho, props to all of yall.

tapedeck wrote:simon yer like the forum batman.
yer right a lot but its like the joker got gotham turned against you.

It is a never ending quest of good against evil, with facts, logic, and rational as my weapons of choice!

Thankfully the joker has temporarily retreated to construct his new lair, and is trying to entice his minions there via PM, and by denying the rest of us his evil genius, so all is relatively quiet in gotham at the moment.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JVC wrote:You can go with your theories, I'll go with my ears and testing (and some theories.)

Your incorrect theories, based on a misunderstanding of the technical aspects, are possibly clouding your judgement.

That is why I asked if you can post examples of side by side recordings, so we can do a blind test to see if one sounds better than the other.

No thank you, I'm not that interested to spoon-feed adult.
I've saying that as my experience, with my equipment. Your result may vary.

I do understand what you are saying, and I believe the stuff about what you said about dynamic range stuff.
Like I said, I trust my ears and theories, and I didn't think 24 bit recording would made noticeable difference, until I tested with 24 bit recording. In another words, I was thinking just like you.
Clearly you haven't recorded anything with 24 bit. Experience is more important than theories and logics, they have to be tested out. It is sad that you haven't even give yourself a chance to make judgement by yourself, using your equipment and your ears.
I do realize that there may be other reason(s) why I get better result with 24 bit over 16 bit, other than just bit depth. Maybe my Quattro doesn't work well with 16 bit depth.

But, I can live with the quote below:

http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/

Bit-Depth
Ok, this is the gospel according to Tweak! Use 24 bit for every recording if you have this feature. I was a believer for the past decade that 16 bit was the way to go and I have absolutely changed my mind. No matter of what you are recording this is true. If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there. But! Its not that 24 bits of data makes the sound better. It actually does not.
What is does is give your audio more room to breathe in the numeric realm of digital audio. Remember, we are talking about numbers, calculations, not analog waveforms. With 24 bits of data demarcing your recording medium, its is possible to record extremely dynamic music, with very quiet soft passages and extraordinary loud passages. Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system. One can record with no compression. You can record at lower levels, with more headroom. This ensures that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, your instruments will sound clearer, and the vocals may sound "cleaner", the song will mix better and there will be less noise. So its not that 24 bit recordings sound better. In fact they may sound just as bad or worse than 16 bit. But 24 bits gives the recordist a noise floor and headroom to create an excellent recording. Its a tool, and in the right hand, it can blow you away, audio wise.