TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Rendering in 24bit
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Rendering in 24bit

Hello,

My knowledge in this area of production is pretty crap so please bare with me.

I've read a few times on here people mentioning that you should render a track in 24bit rather than 16 bit as the quality will be beter when you master it.

Can anyone explain the basics of this for me please?

I've rendered my latest track in 24bit, imported it back into my sequencer to try a bit of home mastering but I can't tell any difference whatsoever.

What exactly should I be doing?

This page explains the basics:

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

I don't think it should make much difference at all unless you're recording hardware, but I could be wrong on that...

If you're doing the mastering yourself you might as well just do the mastering in the master channel of your project file. It will save you a step. If you're sending it off to be professionally mastered it should be 24-bit and peak at -3.0 dB.

In addition to MrJiveBoJingles post, here is something else from tweakheadz that proves rather intriguing and informative. http://studio-central.com/phpbb/vie...ght=24bit+16bit
Pay close attention to the post by "Owel."

Overall, if you can render files in 24-bit, you should try keeping it that way. There are a few parameters to keep in mind:

1. 24-bit files are larger in size than 16-bit files, so you need to allocate a decent amount of hard-drive space to this.

2. It takes longer for a computer to render 24-bit files.

3. If you are working with samples, it would be a good idea to work with 24-bit samples as opposed to 16-bit. This also applies to the sampling rate--try to keep the sampling rate relatively close to the sampling rate you plan to render in.

I don�t see a sense in working in 24 Bits when producing electronic music. As electronic music is not very dynamic, you don�t really need the 24 Bits when recording (if you record anything). If you master your work it will be 16 Bit anyway, no matter if it will be a CD or MP3 file.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Cache I don�t see a sense in working in 24 Bits when producing electronic music. As electronic music is not very dynamic, you don�t really need the 24 Bits when recording (if you record anything). If you master your work it will be 16 Bit anyway, no matter if it will be a CD or MP3 file.

I guess it is more personal preference, but I prefer 24-bit. It gives more head-room against clipping and as an Audiophile, I like to stay on par with technology. I understand that once a file is put on CD, that it goes to 16-bit, but one may never know, the industry standard can always change whether for better or worse.

dont do it, check out this thread to find out why!
http://www.john00fleming.dj/forum/index.php?topic=622.0
btw 24bit sounds alot better, specialy bass sounds more powerfull somehow, but it will be redone to 16bit anyway so just forget about it. unless ur playing live. but if u decide to go 24bit, you should also go 48kHz to get some better treble imo.

the industry standard for mastered audio is 16 bit, 44100 khz, audio cd. or mp3, but those also only have 16 bits.

It�s the same thing with sample rates. I once recorded a band in 99,2 kHz, 24-Bit, mixed the production in that enviornment and than mastered it down to 16-Bit,44,1 kHz, and there wasn�t the slightest difference!

I run at 24 bit 96khz all the time. When I am ready I render full quality wave, then import into Sound Forge and dither down from there to whatever format I might need. IMO it always sounds better this way to me, rather than if I had just rendered to 16 bit 44khz. Alot of synthesizers have higher quality and oversampling, and this you will really benefit by going to higher rates.

If you use alot of samples maybe they are not in 24 bit, and then you will not notice a difference, but, I know from experience that alot of synths sound better at higher rates, even still when dithering down.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Cache the industry standard for mastered audio is 16 bit, 44100 khz, audio cd. or mp3, but those also only have 16 bits. It�s the same thing with sample rates. I once recorded a band in 99,2 kHz, 24-Bit, mixed the production in that enviornment and than mastered it down to 16-Bit,44,1 kHz, and there wasn�t the slightest difference!

actually there is a hearable difference when you work with higher resolution and dither it down to 44,1/16...

This brings up another question I have regarding bitloss. I had to buy a volume control unit because I had to adjust my output by using my soundcard's control interface via software. However I was told having this anywhere below 0db introduces bitloss. So now I have it set at 0db, and adjust the volume with my volume control unit. Does having your sound in your sequencer below 0db cause bitloss or is it just caused by your interface not being at 0db? Like Eldritch, you mention have it at -3 db in your sequencer which is why I'm asking this.

I don�t hear it. My co-workers didn�t hear it. So we went back to 44.1 / 24 or 48 for movie-related stuff

maybe if you do a lot of classical music recordings, you might be able to tell the difference. but not with popular music, especially not in techno. everything is so compressed, nothing left to sample

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Cache If you master your work it will be 16 Bit anyway, no matter if it will be a CD or MP3 file.

This is true, but if you're working with hardware or recording sounds with mics, you really have to take noise reduction into account, because noise levels are cumulative. Anything you can do to reduce noise before the final master can help, and 24-bit recording is one of those things.

You will notice that plugins especially reverbs and synths with sound with more clairity and precision as you raise bitrate and samplerate. Dithering from say 24/96 to 16/44.1 will sound better than rendering in just 16/44.1

Also many DAWs not let you edit sample's bitrate/samplerate now and re-save them. I know Cubase does in the Pool feature and FLStudio 7 does with the Edison sample editor. Not so sure about other programs.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Cache I don�t hear it. My co-workers didn�t hear it. So we went back to 44.1 / 24 or 48 for movie-related stuff maybe if you do a lot of classical music recordings, you might be able to tell the difference. but not with popular music, especially not in techno. everything is so compressed, nothing left to sample

Actually, classical music is one type of music where a lower sample rate would be least noticeable, as it generally has a pretty "dark" spectrum, i.e. the instruments used most often don't generate a large amount of very high frequencies.

A reduction in sample rate is most noticeable in genres that really try to "fill the spectrum" and use lots of high-frequency percussion or aggressive drumming, like much of dance music and the louder types of pop and rock.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus actually there is a hearable difference when you work with higher resolution and dither it down to 44,1/16...

Personally I don't think it's worth the CPU hit.
Any synth worth having will already have sufficient oversampling within the synth engine.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Actually, classical music is one type of music where a lower sample rate would be least noticeable, as it generally has a pretty "dark" spectrum, i.e. the instruments used most often don't generate a large amount of very high frequencies.

This is just plain untrue. Especially classical instruments have a certain amount of high frequencies that are a crucial part of their sound. Have you ever heard a group of strings live? Noticed the "air" they have to their sound? That is what people try to capture by raising sample rates.

Indeed there are some sorts of sounds in electronic music (especially trance) that feature a lot of high frequencies. (I�m sure you know how substractive synthesis works) This would lead to using a higher sample rate. The problem here is that most software instruments still work in 16 Bit / 44.1 kHz and just upsample the sounds to the higher sampling rate. Of course, not all softsynths work this way, NI for example support the higher bitrates

I have dealed with this problem for quite a long time and after a lot of listening and consideration I decided to stick with 44.1 / 16 for electronic music, 44.1 and 24 for recording (I would record synths in 25 Bits, also)...and 48 kHz for film

disk space is so cheap... nominal difference or not, who cares -- wouldn't you want the BEST quality ALL the time for your music? i think everyone will switch over once CD's are no longer the medium used for music...

I see this very often in jazz releases. I don't think it really makes a difference with electronic music though. The sounds are already artificial, so who's to say what it's 'supposed' to sound like? Personally I've always used 16bit and I can't really see the point in switching to 24.

I think this is more a matter of belief than really of a difference in quality of the production, or the music.
Most people should first improve their mixing before dealing with thinks like this...

Oh yeah, recording in 96kHz (assuming your target is CD) actually degrades your sound when it is downsampled, because 96khz doesn't divide evenly to 44.1 kHz. The audio has to be re-interpolated, which introduces artifacts.
You're much better off recording it in 88.2kHz since dividing it in two will yield 44.1kHz.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Cache This is just plain untrue. Especially classical instruments have a certain amount of high frequencies that are a crucial part of their sound. Have you ever heard a group of strings live? Noticed the "air" they have to their sound? That is what people try to capture by raising sample rates.

Look at the frequency plot of a violin section playing. Yeah, it has some frequencies in the upper range, but not nearly the amount of even a very standard pop or trance song. The main reason that classical performances were some of the first to be offered on SACD and other fancy formats is because the demographic that listens to / buys such performances is particularly wealthy and contains a larger portion of audiophile wanks compared to the demographic for other kinds of music, not because classical music uses more high frequencies than other genres.

[And I love classical music, by the way.]

no, the usage of high def. audio formats was not only due to the fact that the average listener of classical music is wealthier..
there is a difference in sound of a recorded sound when sampled at a higher sampling rate, no doubt. but when it comes to synthesizers and other DIGITAL sound generators, I think that this difference is less notable....

you see, the only reasion that tape machines are still used is that they record analog and that an analog recording still has a certain way of character to it that can never be achieved by digital recorders.
i would always prefer to record through an analog console onto an analoge tape machine but as long as I use software sound generators I don�t care about those facts. It�s all digital in the end

furthermore the amount of compression used in dance music is another fact that should be taken into account. most percussive elements are smothened, transients are reduced by the heavy compression that is applied in mastering....

the higher bitrate you can work with/afford, the better. as with the hz rating. a 96khz wav will offer a lot bigger headroom and allow a bigger bandwidth. if you can give suitable files to a mastering suite who work with 24bit 96khz, then do it. there is obviously a reason that the boffins created this bitrate.

I'm working on a solo black metal project, and at first I was recording the guitar parts in 16 bit, but then I decided to record in 32 bit, at 44.1 kHz. My soundcard doesn't even give me the choice to record in 24 bit, my only choices are 16 bit and 32 bit floating point. I rendered the master in 32 bit last night, haven't listened to it yet. I normally render in 16 bit, for my electronic music. I was wondering if it made any difference if you render the master in a higher bitrate.

A buddy of mine told me that when he bounces synths to audio, he uses 24 bit. That makes sense, since you are making a recording. I suppose he then renders in 24 bit, but I'm not sure. Seems if you are using any 24 bit samples, you will want to render in 24 bit. Since it's all reverted back to 16 bit, I'm still not sure if there is any point though. It seems to me, by rendering in higher bitrates, there will be less degregation in the rendering process. When you bump it down to 16 bit, you won't be losing anything.

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