TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- 24/96

24/96

Recently I've heard a lot about 24-bit, 96kHz recording... but how much is it actually used? I know more and more things are becoming compatible with it, but CD quality is 16/44, which is fairly good quality...

so are these new standards worth investing in, are they likely to be used a lot?

It's better to record at a high bit depth, and then dithering down to 16-bit. A higher bit depth = more dynamic range, which is good.

16 bit = 65,536 different dynamics levels of what is captured
18 bit = 262,144
20 bit = 1,048,576
22 bit = 4,194,304
24 bit = 16,777,216

So you can see the advantage of recording in 24 bit. Actually, with noise, slight distortion and other variables you're probably getting more along the lines of 20 bits or so, give or take. Recording at higher sampling rates helps the high freq. resolution. I usually record at 44.1 because the bit depth is more important than the sampling rate. When I do record at a high sampling rate it's at 88.2 because it divides evenly when I convert the rate back down for CD.

So are there any issues like loss of quality, etc, with dithering down to 16/44.1 for CD's, or does it go smoothly?

Re: 24/96

quote:

Originally posted by DjSimonB Recently I've heard a lot about 24-bit, 96kHz recording... but how much is it actually used? I know more and more things are becoming compatible with it, but CD quality is 16/44, which is fairly good quality... so are these new standards worth investing in, are they likely to be used a lot?

it is being used quite a bit. the point is that recording in 2496 allows you to have some quality headroom when processing the recorded waves. it allows you to record at lower levels to evade clipping and distortion, and still have good dynamic range and lower quantisation noise (noise which occurs during conversion of analog signal to digital signal), and extra resolution if you are to do some timestretching or pitchshifting. it is always good to use 2496 files during whole mix, and downsample final master to 441/16.

only real downside to 2496 recording that I can come up with is the strain it will put on your computer.
If you have a 16track song with softwaresynths and FX youre gonna need one hell of a computer to manage it

quote:

Originally posted by DjSimonB So are there any issues like loss of quality, etc, with dithering down to 16/44.1 for CD's, or does it go smoothly?

That mainly depends on the dithering algorythm. But simply put, with a decent dithering application (like POW-R or UV22 for example) used right, it's easy to say that a 24 bit sample dithered down to 16 bit will be better than a straight recorded 16 bit sample (with good dithering and noise shaping, you can get 16 bit samples that have 18 bit like dynamics. The ear can be fooled that easily).

But yes, the strain and storage aspect is important too. Recording at 24/96 (and god, 32float/192, even worse) will put a lot of strain on your comp, and take up A LOT of space.

Personally, I'm all in favor for 24 bit recordings, especially for dynamic signals, as the detail and smoothness will be enhanced. Reverb tails for example is a massive difference.

96 kHz and other high samplerates is another matter. Yes, it can sound better, but people don't even agree yet why, and if it is consistent. 80% of "normal" people can't hear the difference between CD and 192 kbps MP3, let alone 96 kHz vs 44.1 kHz. Anyway, the gain of quality isn't as big as the bitdepth.

What you must understand is that every part of the signal chain counts. If it's to record the noise of your crappy mixer in better resolution, then no. You must be consistent throughout.

One engineer once told me, and I can only agree : first make sure you get your bases right. Don't forget that some well engineered albums recorded in 16/44.1 still sound better than typical "factory produced" 24/96 recordings now. Don't think that 24/96 techniques will mask your inaptitude to record and mix, or even compose. Learn to harness the limits of 16/44.1 first, and then only you'll understand why you need 24/96.

Anyway, about dither. One general rule. If you start high, keep everything that way until the very end. For example, if you record in 24 bit, stay in 24 bit until you print on the medium. Don't go converting to 16 inbetween, and then back to 24 and so on and so on.
Then, dithering is the last step in the chain, and should only be done once. Simply put, dither is noise, and each time you dither, you add more noise. Dither should be done once. At the end, before printing to media (so your projects started at 24 bit, keep them to 24 bit, after mastering, it'll be dithered down to 16 bit to fit on CD, if it ends up on analog media like vinyl, it doesn't necessarily require dithering, as the inherent noise of the medium can and will already be enough to mask the digital artifacts).
What algo and type of dither to use? Personal preference and trial and error will tell. It's not really like POW-R type 3 will always be best on every song you make. Each song requires an unique approach (as the dynamics and levels will be different). So it doesn't really take long and try different dithers, and compare.

quote:

Don't forget that some well engineered albums recorded in 16/44.1 still sound better than typical "factory produced" 24/96 recordings now. Don't think that 24/96 techniques will mask your inaptitude to record and mix, or even compose. Learn to harness the limits of 16/44.1 first, and then only you'll understand why you need 24/96.

Yeah, the albums back in the day sounded better recorded in 16/44.1, because the 16/44.1 converters were way better with better clocks than the current prosumer 24/96 cards. It's also what comes before conversion, like they were using high quality consoles eg. Neve, API, SSL, these are not toys like Mackies, Behringers or what the amateur market is flooded with today. You have to keep in mind these better recordings had better rooms, better mics, better preamps, better monitoring, and most importantly were probably listened and engineered with better minds with damn good ears attached to them. I agree that you need to understand what you're doing before you can make ANY technology work for you, be it 16/44.1, or 24/96.

quote:

Originally posted by AaroNoct Yeah, the albums back in the day sounded better recorded in 16/44.1, because the 16/44.1 converters were way better with better clocks than the current prosumer 24/96 cards. It's also what comes before conversion, like they were using high quality consoles eg. Neve, API, SSL, these are not toys like Mackies, Behringers or what the amateur market is flooded with today.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about pro 16/44.1 vs amateur 24/96 recordings, but definately about pro vs pro. It's not only the gear you use, but how you use it. I'd bet an engineer like Bruce Swedien could still make a killer sounding mix on a midrange Mackie.
Really, I insist it's still the person behind the machines that will define the quality.

you can do dither in photoshop to see what it does to pictures cuz it makes more immediate sense what it does to sound when you can see the effect with your own eyes. dithering is a process of adding 'noise' to a recording essentially. this sounds crazy but if you read the dithering guide on the izotope website it will begin to make sense.

if you render a photo realistic image of a penguin to a 32bit bmp, the bit depth allows for over 16 million colours. the rendered product is pretty damn accurate. now render the same image to an 8bit, 16 colour bmp. you lose loads of detail. most areas which had shades and tones and 3dness now are flat colour, on or off.

when you dither a 32bit image you add speckled noise over the image so that when you render it down to 8bit it retains some of this speckled noise and the image has less flat areas of colour. theres still only 16 colours but some areas where there are colour transitions are covered with varying degrees of stipled noise making the image look clearer and better than just the 8bit render.

this applies almost exactly to sound. a 24bit 96khz mix throughout, dithered to 16bit 44khz is better than just mixing everything in 16bit 44khz.

although dj thy is absolutely correct so listen to him. dither wont cover up a bad mix. you can polish a turd of a track in 24bit 96khz but if you got a muddy bass and kick caused my sloppy EQing, dither aint gonna do anything to cover that up.

thats why its worth getting your mix down as solid and tight as you can before worrying about dithering.

Wow, I was just wondering about this. Does recording at 48khz offer any significant benefit over 44.1khz if you're just exporting to mp3, and how much more CPU power does it use?

quote:

Originally posted by AaroNoct You have to keep in mind these better recordings had better rooms, better mics, better preamps, better monitoring, and most importantly were probably listened and engineered with better minds with damn good ears attached to them. I agree that you need to understand what you're doing before you can make ANY technology work for you, be it 16/44.1, or 24/96.

I think we're in agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Thy Yeah, but I'm not talking about pro 16/44.1 vs amateur 24/96 recordings, but definately about pro vs pro. It's not only the gear you use, but how you use it. I'd bet an engineer like Bruce Swedien could still make a killer sounding mix on a midrange Mackie. Really, I insist it's still the person behind the machines that will define the quality.

If you know what you're doing you'll know what equipment to acquire. If you're a "pro" as in "professional" as in "means of livelihood". It's true a good engineer could get good results with anything. They'll also know what to go after, and what to avoid.

After reading trough this and some other dithering forums, I have an understanding of what it does. However, I am still confused about some things. First of all, everyone is saying "if you work at 24bit". What does that mean? Doesn't all popular sequencers like logic and cubase work internally at 32bit floating point? Or is there some setting I should look for to switch it to 24bit ?

So lets say I have finished my song and now I want to render it for the first time. I would now render it as 24bit without dithering and then import that song to a wave editor and render it again as 16bit with dithering?

Sorry for these stupid questions but my brain works slow

quote:

Originally posted by uxud Wow, I was just wondering about this. Does recording at 48khz offer any significant benefit over 44.1khz if you're just exporting to mp3, and how much more CPU power does it use?

I'd say no. If there is any gain in quality, it's VERY minimal. 48 kHz was originally introduced to allow varispeeding 44.1 kHz recordings (varispeed is in fact nothing else than changing frequency). If you did that with a "normal" 44.1 kHz recording, you'd start having problems with aliasing. That's what 48 kHz was for, NOT for the mere gain in quality.

So for mp3 or cd, I wouldn't do the effort of switching to 48 kHz.

Now onto the question of superddman...

When we talk about working with 24 bit files, we mean working with files that have been RECORDED in 24 bit. Of course, for that you must have audio hardware that can handle that resolution, but nowadays those things are getting more common (of course, like Aaronoct said, there's still a difference between consumer gear and pro gear).

One difficult area for dithering has always been those internal engine resolutions of the audio programs. First a simple explanation why they work at such high resolutions internally. I'll explain it with a metaphor, so not to scare of most of you

Let's assume your audio level is represented by a money value of 1.0 dollar. Precision is one after the decimal (.1). Now let's say you want your audio level to be 1/4 of full scale. That would be 0.25 dollar. If you retain that .1 resolution, you'll have to round off. Your actual value would be 0.3 dollar. You see here that you already lost some information. And that only with a simple gain change. So, you can only guess how many info you lose with more difficult processes... It might not sound important to you like that, but don't forget a lot of micro information is described in those bits you lose, like reverb tails, spatial info and such.

Now if you take your 1.0$, and your sequencer says : well I see it as 1.000$. It's still one dollar, but with 0.001 resolution. If you would take the 1/4 level again, the result would be 0.250 And here you see you retain more info.

You'll ask, what's the point if you reduce bitdepth at the end anyway. You'll lose the info no matter what. Well, try it with simple calculations, and see what is the most precise result : losing a bit of information on every calculation, or losing a bit of information just on the very end. Consecutive losses will be worse.

A fairly easy way to prove this, is to use an editor that has a bitscope, like wavelab. Take a 16 bit file for example, and do something as easy as a gain change, and you'll see that the bitmeter suddenly shows you have more bits than the original 16.

The problem lies in the engine. A good professional program will work at a high internal bitdepth, but do nothing else. Some programs have the bad habit to work at a high internal resolution too, but dither down to the working bitdepth after each process again. And like we said, dither should only be done once, at the very end.

thanks for that long reply.
So if I have my song complete and ready for rendering, I can just render it as 16bit using dithering?
OR
I have to first time redner it as 24 bit without dithering and then import this wave back into audio sequencer and then export it as 16bit with dithering?
Isn't the first process more logical?

it doesnt matter as long as dither is the final step. there would be no point in rendering to 24bit 96khz wav unless you want to compare it with the final dithered 16bit render.

You can do it directly.

The example of keeping a file at high resolution is for example when you're going to an external mastering house.

It would be pointless to burn your song on a CD as audio for example (16 bit, 44.1 kHz). In that case it's better to render your file at the working resolution, and give that file to the mastering engineer (rarely do they accept the sequencer projects).

It's just when you are using intermediate steps : keep it as high as possible until the final render.

so it would be a good idea to first render it as 24bit or even 32float without dithering, then import it into audio editor and then apply mastering plugins and then render it as 16bit with dithering?

Is it better to go with 32float or it won't make difference?

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