TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- 16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS)
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley I'm trying to have a civil discussion regarding the audible differences between the two because I have found that I enjoy 24 bit sample packs quite a bit more than 16 bit sample packs.

How many 24 bit to 16 bit sample pack comparisons have you even made? And what do you think a higher bit rate does to samples that makes them sound superior?

u would probably like deadmaus samplepack better than others even if it was 12bit so this has nothing to do with 24bit. if u rename the title to "which sample pack is best sounding" then ull be fine.

to stop the fight: i agree that 24bit sounds better. i did render all my tracks at 24bit before (and 48kHz) beacuse i think it sounded better somehow, atleast in the bass area somehow, i dont know why. i stopped this when I started releaseing my tracks. mp3 decoding seems alot more unstable from 24-bit, i used lame and it worked but i got some weird as distortion in the treble when going to 192kbps when using 24-bit to 16bit. Problem probably also there in 320kbsp but not as audible. So i started rendering at 44,1 16bit and all my troubles with mp3 encoding was solved.

When I sent one of my 48kHz 24bit wav-files to a label and they agreed to release it, they fucked up the mp3 converting making the track sound ass. if u want to know how it sound when labels fuck up the converting i can post u the link beacuse they have not been able to remove the samples. Whirlloop had the same problem with the same label on many tracks actualy.

I have 4 tracks on other labels than my own and all of them have been fucked up (in diferent ways though). The 3 first was terrible mastered (just a ASOT limiter, making it sound like ass radio), and this last one was fucked up with bitrate and samplerate change, mp3 decoding whatever its called. this is why I from now on do everything myself and follows the standards and release stuff only on my own label.

in these mp3 days, its all about getting as good as possible with the fileformat avaliable. maybe if the CD business changes and start selling SA-CDs cheaper than normal CDs, just to back some interest we can talk again. beacuse yeah 24 bit sounds better.

I hope someday, when internet v2 comes, and piracy stops, the new standard will be SA-CD, in 24bit 48kHz and hopefully 90 or 120 minutes. This will allow for the CD-market to be good again and also general standard soundquality rise.

Image a houseparty/preparty without iTunes or Spotify or Youtube and SACD instead

I doubt that piracy will ever stop, unfortunately.

ok but increase and somehow possible to detect and arrest. atleast in western countries.

quote:

Originally posted by palm ok but increase and somehow possible to detect and arrest. atleast in western countries.

It's not a criminal offense in most cases, especially with music. Film is a different story, but I believe the laws only cover physical copy sharing and I also believe there has to be some financial gain in it (for criminal)

For civil, they can sue for anything and claim it as damage to the company. The problem is music companies and labels don't have the money and time to hire lawyers to sue people who likely have no money to begin with.

Piracy will never stop in my opinion unless hardware is built that cannot be replicated by software. (ie. something other than digital. perhaps a re-visit to some sort of bonafied analog?)

But, we're getting a little off topic here.

Can't believe nobody else here will comment about audible differences and preferences when it comes to 24 bit. Is it a fear of looking bad because the numbers, according to some, say 16 bit is more pure? (And since when did being pure mean anything? The beauty of analog is that is ISN'T pure and people don't seem to have difficulty getting a hard-on and talking about it for lengths at a time)

Speak up you cowards!

as said i like the sound of 24bit but it doesnt matter before SACD will be the standard. i have nothing to play it on.

So you believe 24bit is useless then because when it is decoded to mp3 it loses its sonic advantage?

That's a fair assessment. I've had instances where I have used a lot of 24bit samples, and wasn't happy when I got to the mp3, but it's only happened twice and both were regarding vocal samples which to my estimate were garbage to begin with (wouldn't have mattered what bit they were, wish i had the 16 recording of them to make sure though)

24bit is certainly not an all or nothing deal (though I prefer 24bit overall). In some cases, different bit rates are probably better, but I'm far from having that knowledge and experience, however; I'm sure some here have experiences in this department.


Why are 24 bit sample packs made if (you believe) 16 bit is equal or better.

to cater to you?

anyway, I must say that it is hard to keep tech & specs out of the discussion because then it becomes a discussion of emotions / feelings / gut / anecdotal / whatever.

And there is really no other possible conclusion to that than "to each his/her own". If it feels good to you, do it.

Which is not so bad a conclusion anyway. Making music is an emotional process, and if you feel better doing it on your terms, if that allows you to make music with more satisfaction, if that gives you a smile on your face because it sounds how you want it to sound and how you are convinced it sounds best, then it helps your process of making music. Regardless of whether or not it's a placebo-like effect

Simple, 24 bit has a lower noise floor than 16 bit. The reason to use 24 rather than 16 is if you are worried about the noise floor becoming an issue, which can happen if you are doing live recordings or using a very large number of tracks.

quote:

Originally posted by Pjotr G And there is really no other possible conclusion to that than "to each his/her own". If it feels good to you, do it. Which is not so bad a conclusion anyway. Making music is an emotional process, and if you feel better doing it on your terms, if that allows you to make music with more satisfaction, if that gives you a smile on your face because it sounds how you want it to sound and how you are convinced it sounds best, then it helps your process of making music. Regardless of whether or not it's a placebo-like effect

Exactly. That is the whole point of this thread! All I was asking is 24 bit or 16 bit and why (from an audible perspective)

I figured some of the experienced and smarter people here would come in with answers such as "16bit samples are the best for drums in my opinion" - but it appears nobody wants to touch the topic for what it is. I have an overwhelming sense that people are avoiding this topic because of ego and pride and are afraid if they let their opinions be known that somebody will call them stupid and post a bunch of numbers explaining why they are stupid.

The stupid one is the one wasting all that time caring about numbers. It's all about what you hear and perceive. Bit rates, audio encoding, frequencies etc are not going through peoples minds when they're on a dance floor nor when they're listening to the radio.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Simple, 24 bit has a lower noise floor than 16 bit. The reason to use 24 rather than 16 is if you are worried about the noise floor becoming an issue, which can happen if you are doing live recordings or using a very large number of tracks.

There we go.

Are there specific instruments and sounds (I would say frequencies but it is too technical of a term ) more prone to these audio problems when using just 16 bits?

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley There we go. Are there specific instruments and sounds (I would say frequencies but it is too technical of a term ) more prone to these audio problems when using just 16 bits?

How much of a problem it will be depends on the noisiness of your equipment and the volume of the source you are recording. Lower source volume or noisier equipment will make it more of a problem. Recording through a mic will normally be noisier than recording directly through audio as with a synthesizer, so I guess vocals or any "live" instrument played by a person and picked up by a mic.

This really has nothing to do with representing any particular frequency range, whether bass, mids, or highs.

care to elaborate on the noise floor thing?

When you record something (analog, i.e. through audio cables), noise is recorded along with it. The noise is in the signal, and it is recorded, regardless of what format you record it to.

I realise that higher bit rates allow for more dynamic precision, how does that relate to recorded noise?

Also interesting; dithering (a processing technique commonly applied when converting from higher bitrate to lower bitrate) intentionally adds noise to the recording. This is done to make sure that quiet parts of the signal are actually are increased in volume, so that they fall above the lower precision threshold (so they can be supported by the lower bitrate). This implies that recording something directly to 16 bit will be less noisy than recording to 24 bit, and then converting to 16 bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Pjotr G care to elaborate on the noise floor thing? When you record something (analog, i.e. through audio cables), noise is recorded along with it. The noise is in the signal, and it is recorded, regardless of what format you record it to. I realise that higher bit rates allow for more dynamic precision, how does that relate to recorded noise?

It is my understanding that the system you are recording on will have less noise if you are working in a higher bit rate, so you will have less additional noise added to whatever is already being added by the cables (and the room, if you are recording through a mic). Is that incorrect?

quote:

Also interesting; dithering (a processing technique commonly applied when converting from higher bitrate to lower bitrate) intentionally adds noise to the recording. This is done to make sure that quiet parts of the signal are actually are increased in volume, so that they fall above the lower precision threshold (so they can be supported by the lower bitrate). This implies that recording something directly to 16 bit will be less noisy than recording to 24 bit, and then converting to 16 bit.

How much noise does the dithering process actually add, though?

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley I respect your posts, but you have completely derailed this thread. There is a big reason why I put no tech specs, in capital letters, on the thread title.

Excuse me, but "16 bit" and "24 bit" ARE technical specs. That is exactly what they are - technical specifications for a digital audio encoding!

This is like kindergarten. Don't bother me with facts or arguments, just tell us how it made you feel. You're asking for soft answers to questions for which there are hard answers; people aren't "avoiding" your question, they're just giving correct answers as opposed to subjective and made up answers.

I proposed a test that, unlike yours, would actually prove something substantial. I had to get into "tech specs" in order to explain why. If you want to go through with this test, fine, let us know. Otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to invent creative but spurious answers to a question that's not really a question.

Is this a legitimate discussion, or a soapbox? You choose.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles How much noise does the dithering process actually add, though?

Conversion noise is relatively constant no matter what algorithm is used; dithering just adds a different kind of noise.

It's no different from shrinking an image down to half-size. No matter what you do, you're losing information. But some approaches are better for different types of images (i.e. photos vs. line art). If you know you're going to lose a certain amount of something, then all you can do is choose what to lose.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Excuse me, but "16 bit" and "24 bit" ARE technical specs. That is exactly what they are - technical specifications for a digital audio encoding! This is like kindergarten. Don't bother me with facts or arguments, just tell us how it made you feel. You're asking for soft answers to questions for which there are hard answers; people aren't "avoiding" your question, they're just giving correct answers as opposed to subjective and made up answers. I proposed a test that, unlike yours, would actually prove something substantial. I had to get into "tech specs" in order to explain why. If you want to go through with this test, fine, let us know. Otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to invent creative but spurious answers to a question that's not really a question. Is this a legitimate discussion, or a soapbox? You choose.

Exactly. Do the test that Diginut proposed and be done with it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Excuse me, but "16 bit" and "24 bit" ARE technical specs. That is exactly what they are - technical specifications for a digital audio encoding! This is like kindergarten. Don't bother me with facts or arguments, just tell us how it made you feel. You're asking for soft answers to questions for which there are hard answers; people aren't "avoiding" your question, they're just giving correct answers as opposed to subjective and made up answers. I proposed a test that, unlike yours, would actually prove something substantial. I had to get into "tech specs" in order to explain why. If you want to go through with this test, fine, let us know. Otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to invent creative but spurious answers to a question that's not really a question. Is this a legitimate discussion, or a soapbox? You choose.

I see. Could you then tell me why people always talk about that "analog" and "warm sound ? Do it in specs (I already know the answer, so you really don't have to bother)

I don't understand how so many could say analog sounds so much better when digital is a much more pure process. Maybe those idiots need to quit worrying about all those distortion and VCO's numbers and start paying attention to the fact that digital sound is superior because it doesn't have to worry about deteriorating signal factors.

I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money!

It's not that analog is dirty lo-fi, it's that analog harmonic distortion is considered pleasing to the ear. Digital purity bothers some people because everything sounds too processed[.

Combine that with a strong nostalgia for vintage sounds (and why not? especially if many of the greatest songs you've ever heard were recorded in an analog format) and you will see why some people are die hard analog enthusiasts.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley I see. Could you then tell me why people always talk about that "analog" and "warm sound ? Do it in specs (I already know the answer, so you really don't have to bother) I don't understand how so many could say analog sounds so much better when digital is a much more pure process. Maybe those idiots need to quit worrying about all those distortion and VCO's numbers and start paying attention to the fact that digital sound is superior because it doesn't have to worry about deteriorating signal factors. I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money!

Maybe those idiots should go and make some music???
Honestly, the odd time i go onto the EDM section on gearslutz for example, these guys are going on about this juno and that juno, theyll have all their gear listed in their sigs, but, no music to be heard...

Im guilty of it myself, worrying about this synth and that synth, which compressor/eq/reverb etc etc instead of concentrating on making some decent tunes.
The more mixes i do the more i realise that half of the shit thats discussed on the various messageboards isnt really that important when it comes to making a decent track.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money!

If you don't like the sounds that come out of analog synths, then don't buy them, but when you crap on about "inferior sound" as if your opinion is objective truth, then you are being just as silly as the people who say all digital synths suck. Personally, I like a lot of sounds from both worlds, but if you prefer all digital stuff, more power to you. No need to get so worked up about it.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money!

Same reason some people may buy an old Stradivarius violin or Gibson Les Paul guitar, rather than a brand new 2009 model. Each piece of equipment is going to have its own particular sound. If the artist wants that particular sound, they're going to choose that particular piece of equipment, even if you think they're an idiot.

For you and your music, yes, these old analog synths are worthless.

For someone else, they are priceless and worth every cent.

It may be interesting to look at why you're getting so worked up about this - do you get worked up about prices of other things you don't care about? For example, if a new women's perfume sells for a thousand dollars in stores? I, for example, don't really mind what price a given Picasso painting sells for at an auction. It's a world (the art buying world) I don't care that much about.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles It is my understanding that the system you are recording on will have less noise if you are working in a higher bit rate, so you will have less additional noise added to whatever is already being added by the cables (and the room, if you are recording through a mic). Is that incorrect?

I don't know, but I can't think of any reason why this would be correct. That's why I'm interested in an explanation for this supposed phenomenon.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles How much noise does the dithering process actually add, though?

I'm not sure, it also depends on algorithm/settings used. In my tracker days I used to convert samples from 16 bit to 8 bit ; there it was very audible.

Here's a Jazz comparison between the two bitrates:
http://soundcloud.com/linnrecords/s...son-alyn-cosker

quote:

Originally posted by Pjotr G I don't know, but I can't think of any reason why this would be correct. That's why I'm interested in an explanation for this supposed phenomenon.

I could very well be confused. I am less knowledgeable about recording than about other aspects of production.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.