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 MrJiveBoJingles Whether a high bit rate will be best for a sample has absolutely nothing to do with its high frequency content. High frequency content will be affected by sample rate, not bit rate. Do you know what the function of bit depth is in digital audio?

Regarding your first statement: Yes it has. What you are talking about here is bit depth and not bit rate.

Bit rate is sample rate * bit depth.

Other than that, you are right. It's just a misconseption of the meaning of the words.

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.

What is important when recording is recording the signal as hot as possible (As high above the analog noise floor as possible). But if you dont go through any analog mixer or pre-amp before the signal reaches the digital realm, it's not that important to record hot anymore, as our a/d converters gets better and better in quality (i.e greater bit depth conversion).

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley So you are saying that everything regarding this topic is factual, non-subjective, and the gospel? Why is it so hard to try and discern audible differences from 24 bit or 16 bit. I don't understand what differentiates this from other topics regarding different mediums for dance music.

First educate yourself on the math, then prove to us that you have understood the math, then come to your same conclusions, and we might take you seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley The point of the thread is to gather opinions on the use of 24 bit samples vs. 16 bit samples, as well as how they sound when filtered down to mp3.

Are we talking about samples, or are we talking about the final rendering? I've seen these two issues conflated several times in the thread, and they are worlds apart.

Using 24-bit samples, if you have them, is advantageous. It is going to sound better in the end, perhaps audibly better, because you are working with a lower noise floor. Of course this assumes that they are genuine 24-bit samples and not 16-bit samples that were up-converted to 24-bit.

The final render will also sound better in 24 bits as opposed to 16 bits, but only for as long as it's actually 24 bits. Once it's an MP3, that advantage is gone.

That doesn't mean that there's no point in using 24 bit samples if your final output is going to be 16 bits. There is. If you add 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, and then round off, your result is 5. If you round your inputs (2 + 2), your result is 4. There's no need to hear it - it's plainly obvious that using the highest precision inputs you can is a good idea even if your output is lower precision.

But when you're talking about the output, the end result, it's actually going to be detrimental to use 24 bits as an intermediary. Using the oversimplified math above, if you crunch some numbers and end up with a result of 3.47, and round to the nearest whole number, you get 3. If you round to 1 decimal place first (3.5), then round to the nearest whole number, you end up with 4. Bad.

I know, I know, all this dirty math and tech specs. But there is no sense in shooting opinions back and forth unless (a) we know what exactly it is we're talking about, and (b) we are all talking about the same thing. I see a lot of people in here not understanding the conceptual differences, and posting a couple of samples isn't going to highlight those conceptual differences.

We need to clarify this question; what are we referring to when we talk about "audible differences?"

A track made using 24-bit samples, vs. the same track made using the same sounds as 16-bit samples? Absolutely, there's an audible difference, although you might need some pretty high-end equipment to hear it, and even then you'll only notice if the track has a wide dynamic range.

A track bounced as a 24-bit wave file, then encoded directly as an MP3? Absolutely not - any audible difference you hear is going to be distortion.

Rather simple answers to simple questions that don't warrant such a lengthy discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut A track bounced as a 24-bit wave file, then encoded directly as an MP3? Absolutely not - any audible difference you hear is going to be distortion.

Hmmm - Care to refresh my memory on some of the reasons people love true analog?

quote:

Originally posted by evo8 syn drums 16bit syn drums 24bit syn drums X 2 syn drums 16bit 2 syn drums 24bit 2 syn drums X 3 syn drums 16bit 3 syn drums 24bit 3 syn drums X To whom it may concern - identify the original bitdepth of track X in each of the above edit: bitdepth not bitrate!!!

1. 24


2. 16


3. 24

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley 1. 24 2. 16 3. 24

2/3 sir

quote:

Originally posted by Diginut A track made using 24-bit samples, vs. the same track made using the same sounds as 16-bit samples? Absolutely, there's an audible difference, although you might need some pretty high-end equipment to hear it, and even then you'll only notice if the track has a wide dynamic range.

Is there really an audible difference tho. Whos to say that IF i had "pretty high-end equipment" i would hear a difference, plus a lot of the stuff we are making has a small dynamic range anyway.

I know you are saying that scientifically i should hear a difference but i cant. Ive got a MOTU Ultralite interface thru Mackie monitors, is that high-end enough to hear a potential difference??? i dunno but i cant distinguish....

I dont think the reality of it all is as simple as you are making out, if it was then we wouldnt be having this discussion!!

Stephen is there any chance you could make some 24 and 16bit wav loops from this sample pack you referred to in your first post, id like to have a listen to both just to if personally i can hear a difference.........

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Hmmm - Care to refresh my memory on some of the reasons people love true analog?

to avoid digital distortion

good post this. some interesting opinions as well.

let me put it like this. If i record a sample of someone singing and i record in 24 bit in cubase. for that sound to get from singer to cubase, its goes through a number of conversions
1 from singer to mic ie to electronic energy. the better mic i use, the better the quality.
2 mic down cable to preamp, where signal is boosted and maybe slightly processed.
3 preamp to soundcard where it under goes an AD conversion, but i've got a kickass soundcard with great convertors so i dont lose much in the translation from analog to digital.

now if i did the same but with only 16 bit recording, i lose something. and if you play the recorded tracks back to back. you can tell. it loses something, its hard to say what exactly but its there. now if i convert said file to mp3, it again loses something. bit of top end disappears, bit of bass energy seems to disappear. regardless of what quality mp3 i convert too, both files get degraded in some way and the result is that the 24 bit mp3 file sounds better,
is it audible?? not very compared to the 16 bit one. does it really matter in the end?? not a great deal...

when your comparing samples and different rates the difference will be so small because your probably starting with digital samples/synths to begin with.

your also trusting the manaufacturers that what they say is true, that files were rendered in 24 bit and the quality is great, as opposed to 16bit files converted up to 24 bit which will make fukall difference to the sound. stuff like the vengeance sound packs are so processed and limited that its nigh on irrelavent what depth they are due to the massively high volume and the audible distortion on them anyway.

what i'm trying to say in a rather convoluted way is that the higher quality input you have the better. it will show its self in the finished product, maybe not a massive amount but it will be there.

and for the OP who prefers digi to analog, you ever played on a moog or prophet keyboard? try it. i've had the pleasure of borrowing an old Prophet 5 keyboard which the native instruments pro53 was modelled on. nd its sounds massively better in everyway.

try comparing the novation v station to a roland JP8000 which i understand is quite a good comparison. vstation only sounds better due to the truckload of effects and a rather tasty reverb, lose the effects and it sounds crap, and yes i own both and much prefer the sound of the JP. same goes for that bloody vanguard synth, awefull sounds apart from the effects which disguise it.. but who knows, posibly its the monitoring environment, ive got a pair of disgustingly good speakers, and please trust me when i say you can hear the differences!

quote:

Originally posted by studiobob good post this. some interesting opinions as well. let me put it like this. If i record a sample of someone singing and i record in 24 bit in cubase. for that sound to get from singer to cubase, its goes through a number of conversions 1 from singer to mic ie to electronic energy. the better mic i use, the better the quality. 2 mic down cable to preamp, where signal is boosted and maybe slightly processed. 3 preamp to soundcard where it under goes an AD conversion, but i've got a kickass soundcard with great convertors so i dont lose much in the translation from analog to digital. now if i did the same but with only 16 bit recording, i lose something. and if you play the recorded tracks back to back. you can tell. it loses something, its hard to say what exactly but its there. now if i convert said file to mp3, it again loses something. bit of top end disappears, bit of bass energy seems to disappear. regardless of what quality mp3 i convert too, both files get degraded in some way and the result is that the 24 bit mp3 file sounds better, is it audible?? not very compared to the 16 bit one. does it really matter in the end?? not a great deal... when your comparing samples and different rates the difference will be so small because your probably starting with digital samples/synths to begin with. your also trusting the manaufacturers that what they say is true, that files were rendered in 24 bit and the quality is great, as opposed to 16bit files converted up to 24 bit which will make fukall difference to the sound. stuff like the vengeance sound packs are so processed and limited that its nigh on irrelavent what depth they are due to the massively high volume and the audible distortion on them anyway. what i'm trying to say in a rather convoluted way is that the higher quality input you have the better. it will show its self in the finished product, maybe not a massive amount but it will be there. and for the OP who prefers digi to analog, you ever played on a moog or prophet keyboard? try it. i've had the pleasure of borrowing an old Prophet 5 keyboard which the native instruments pro53 was modelled on. nd its sounds massively better in everyway. try comparing the novation v station to a roland JP8000 which i understand is quite a good comparison. vstation only sounds better due to the truckload of effects and a rather tasty reverb, lose the effects and it sounds crap, and yes i own both and much prefer the sound of the JP. same goes for that bloody vanguard synth, awefull sounds apart from the effects which disguise it.. but who knows, posibly its the monitoring environment, ive got a pair of disgustingly good speakers, and please trust me when i say you can hear the differences!

did you try the test yet?

p.s. please keep the analog v digital to a minimum, we've been through that in other threads

quote:

Originally posted by evo8 Stephen is there any chance you could make some 24 and 16bit wav loops from this sample pack you referred to in your first post, id like to have a listen to both just to if personally i can hear a difference.........

Gotta work tonight but I'll do multiple samples tomorrow. They will be from sample packs.

quote:

Originally posted by studiobob now if i did the same but with only 16 bit recording, i lose something. and if you play the recorded tracks back to back. you can tell. it loses something, its hard to say what exactly but its there. now if i convert said file to mp3, it again loses something. bit of top end disappears, bit of bass energy seems to disappear. regardless of what quality mp3 i convert too, both files get degraded in some way and the result is that the 24 bit mp3 file sounds better, is it audible?? not very compared to the 16 bit one. does it really matter in the end?? not a great deal...

Good to hear. For a minute I thought I might be hearing audible hallucinations. Glad to see that other people are speaking.

I don't know - When mastering, 24bit sounds clearly better on the track. That is assuming they just didn't export their project in 24 or 32bit and pretty much did everything with 16 bit samples.

no, i havent tried the test. i dont feel i need to. i've been blessed with a stupidly good monitoring system and if i couldnt tell the difference between 2 types of file be it wav or mp3 or whatever then i probably need to retire early!

quote:

Originally posted by evo8 did you try the test yet? p.s. please keep the analog v digital to a minimum, we've been through that in other threads

sorry was just making a point between a similar comparison. i'll let it lie. i will just say that those who tend to knock analog synths and hardware comps/eqs have probably never used any good ones... or then again it may just be down to personal taste

quote:

Originally posted by studiobob no, i havent tried the test. i dont feel i need to. i've been blessed with a stupidly good monitoring system and if i couldnt tell the difference between 2 types of file be it wav or mp3 or whatever then i probably need to retire early!

heeeeeyyyyyy come on, what you have got to lose but your internet reputation

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Gotta work tonight but I'll do multiple samples tomorrow. They will be from sample packs.

appreciate that mate

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Hmmm - Care to refresh my memory on some of the reasons people love true analog?

First of all, I don't really see how that's relevant to the issue of bit depths.

Second, it's generally misleading to say that "people" love "true analog". Some people love specific analog sounds, and generally what they love is the unique sound of a particular instrument like a minimoog, or a particular amplifier. That's not the same as saying that a statistically significant majority of people prefer any analog sound to any digital sound, and if anyone tried to say that, even just about himself, I'd be very skeptical and propose a blind test to prove it.

Last but not least, in the specific case of analog tube amps, which is really the only "true analog" sound in the amp world (anything with a transistor is solid-state and therefore digital), the main reason many people prefer that is because tubes produce warm-sounding second-order distortion as opposed to the gritty-sounding third-order distortion and intermodulation distortion found in overdriven digital amps.

When it comes to analog "instruments", it's generally the filters and specifically the particular components (capacitors, inductors) used to make them that produce that instrument's characteristic sound. The fact that the circuit is analog is mostly incidental; if you yanked out some of those big capacitors and replaced them with completely different caps having the same capacitance, you would not get exactly the same sound. What you're actually hearing and what most people refer to as "warmth" or "colour" is a different kind of distortion due to nonlinearities in the components; digital systems have a hard time recreating those without elaborate algorithms and never produce these artifacts "accidentally".

Back on topic, it's funny that you're now agreeing with bob, who said pretty much the same thing I did. Higher-fidelity inputs will produce a higher-fidelity end result; however, if you have to lower the fidelity at the very end (i.e. to make an MP3), then it is better to do it in the minimum possible number of discrete stages in order to avoid compounding the loss.

Re: Re: 16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS)

quote:

Originally posted by Pjotr G Well, this makes sense. When you convert down to 16 bit, dithering is applied. Apperently its artifacts have a pleasing effect on you. A 32 bit sample converted to 16 bits, however, has no more than 16 bits of dynamic depth. Which raises the question, is it possible to apply "converting artifacts" to 16 bit recordings, to make them sound more pleasing to you, without ever using a 32 bit source.... Note: something similar was going on with wav/mp3 comparisons. In blind tests, a fair amount of people preferred the mp3 sound over the wav. It is not a matter of objective quality, but of subjective enjoyment of certain processing techniques applied to a sound as part of the converting process. Can you apply those techniques on a wav without actually converting to mp3....

Isn't it also just possible that those people involved in the study had no fuckin idea what they were listening for/to and therefore just gave bullshit answers to the questions asked and hence the strange result?

I do understand what you're getting at anyway, but my point still requires consideration

Re: Re: Re: 16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS)

quote:

Originally posted by daveth Isn't it also just possible that those people involved in the study had no fuckin idea what they were listening for/to and therefore just gave bullshit answers to the questions asked and hence the strange result?

No, cause then the result would be 50/50. I suppose they tested a sufficient amount of individuals for the uncertainty factor to not have any effect..

Re: Re: Re: 16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS)

quote:

Originally posted by daveth Isn't it also just possible that those people involved in the study had no fuckin idea what they were listening for/to and therefore just gave bullshit answers to the questions asked and hence the strange result? I do understand what you're getting at anyway, but my point still requires consideration

Of course they didn't know what to listen for, that's the point. Regular people don't care that flangy hihats are an artifact of mp3's. The study was not about discernable differences between wav and mp3. It was about what was more PLEASING to listen to. Like the OP, these people don't care about tech specs, they care about listening pleasure.

Forgive me this may be out of line or incorrect. but wouldn't the interface your using also have an impact on how the samples are play'd back. especially if were talking about running some tests on specific samples to discern differences in them. If your wanting to get an accurate example.

As the sampling frequency to which an audio interface digital records and then plays back, is going to be determined by its sampling frequency and bit rate, yes?

I just read this thread from start to finish, and I have been reading a book on computer based production and it made reference to the interface. So i thought i would bring this up.

I guess my point is: that given the sampling frequency of any particular interface (may vary) perhaps not so much these days, when in play back mode, this will therefore vary the nature of the sample depending on what bit rate the sample is, and thus alter its quality?

forgive me if incorrect - just trying to understand all this".

edit* - this would only matter i guess if we were comparing samples on different systems from the same sample'.

in theory yes. a cr@p system will lower the quality of the samples your playing. nowadays most systems you work on will be at least 16bit at 44,100 sample rate. and thats not a bad setup by any means. but since the plan was to compare 2 samples side by side then both samples are in the same environment so one will still be noticably different.

the main factor in deciding the quality of 2 samples will be your monitoring enviroment. if you've got sh1t speakers or listening on headphones then you probably cant tell the difference between 24bit and16 anyway

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