TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Bit Rate - And why it doesn't apply to you
Pages (7): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

Bit depth - And why it doesn't apply to you

Alot of people have been using this term regarding their final mix wondering or asserting the perceived quality.

Bit Rate affects dynamic range. Unless you are recording (live instruments more so than synths) or mixing at something under -10dbfs ( which is very conservative ) , you really aren't going to benifit from 24 bits or 32 bits. That isn't to say it couldn't help some other forms of audio , but the way dance is mixed, it really is not going to make any difference.

Just wanted to get that out in the open.

I disagree.

Just getting that out there, in the open, too.

why do you disagree ?

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV why do you disagree ?

Something I read in the Computer Music Tutorial back in 2000 along with a noticeable improvement in quality when I convert Reason ReWire input into a high-bit-depth .wav file.

Why do you agree?

Just use 2048bit .wav format. Problem solved.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Something I read in the Computer Music Tutorial back in 2000 along with a noticeable improvement in quality when I convert Reason ReWire input into a high-bit-depth .wav file.

Quite true.

I never said it wouldn't be higher quality. I'm saying the added fidelity, as marginal as it probably is considering the mediums described, will not matter once you are mixing said sources near -3dbfs.

Why I agree with myself ? Are you really asking that question ?

Refer to initial post. It is actually quite simple. Do you understand what dynamic range is? Music mixed at that level does not really have dynamic range. 16 bit is quite adept at dealing with the limited range of almost every EDM release. 24 bit just isn't going to do anything. Like having 8 gigs of ram in windows xp.

What is the highest possible quality you can get in digital audio?

How high do the numbers go..I don't care if there is no difference, i just want to know how HIGH do they go? What would i need to do to make an audio file of the highest setting possible?

there is no answer. The only limitation is ram and hardrive space. You can create a 1000000 bit 44 Mhz file format if you really wanted to. It is just an arbitrary organization of information.

But humans can only hear to 22 khz and the JND is 1 db so it is irrelevant, unless i suppose you were mixing music for dolphins. And besides most playback will only support so many formats.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV Quite true. I never said it wouldn't be higher quality. I'm saying the added fidelity, as narginal as it probably is considering the mediumms described, will not matter when you are mixing near -3dbfs. Why I agree with myself ? Are you really asking that question ? Refer to initial post. It is actually quite simple. Do you understand what dynamic range is? Music mixed at that level does really have dynamic range. 16 bit is quite adept at dealing with the limited range of almost every EDM release. 24 bit just isn't going to do anything.

Proof?

And being that you offered the thesis up for discussion does imply that you agree with it. Being that your prose is littered with common spelling mistakes, you've got a nerve to beg for semantic consideration in any argument.

Was going to see if there is any, at all,difference between the norm and supreme high quality.

Always sad when someone has nothing left in their little bag of tricks that they have to start calling people on their spelling. PS, prose is more a grammatical syntax thing but i'm sure a literature scholar like you knos that.

My lack of detail to spelling is probably due to my frustration having to explain such simple concepts to people like you that clearly don't understand the core concepts to make sense of why i said what i said but keep demanding to understand when they aren't willing to understand the terms involved.



Proof ?

You are asking me to prove why 10 - 5 is 5. I actually would but until more people start asking why , i think i will wait. The reason being that if you don't get it thus far, it will take a really long discourse on the principles of digital audio and i just don't have the time to spoon fed you.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Was going to see if there is any, at all,difference between the norm and supreme high quality.

it will make a difference. Just not for dance.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV Always sad when someone has nothing left in their little bag of tricks that they have to start calling people on their spelling. PS, prose is more a grammatical syntax thing but i'm sure a literature scholar like you knos that. My lack of detail to spelling is probably due to my frustration having to explain such simple concepts to people like you that clearly don't understand the core concepts to make sense of why i said what i said but keep demanding to understand when they aren't willing to understand the terms involved. Proof ? You are asking me to prove why 10 - 5 is 5. I actually would but until more people start asking why , i think i will wait. The reason being that if you don't get it thus far, it will take a really long discourse on the principles of digital audio and i just don't have the time to spoon fed you.

Touched a nerve, did I? Just remember, you threw the first punch, in that regard.

I'm asking for proof of your thesis. You either have it, or you don't. Right now, all you're making is conjecture and that's a poor substitute for an actual argument.

Now, prove that high-resolution recording does not make a difference next to lower resolution recordings, for music which is commonly played on a large sound-system that magnify sound or don't.

I'm not taking your word for it. You don't have substantial credibility, any more. Post a link to an authoritative website that backs up your argument.

Otherwise, I'm content to let the matter drop.

What a strange thread, with a lot of double backing. It deosn't matter, the it does matter, then it only doesn't matter for EDM.

Rendering a .wav made in a seqeuncer with mixed sources (VST and samples) sounds better at higher bitrates. I've tested it before. It works. Now go try it yourself, then post back here.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN What a strange thread, with a lot of double backing. It deosn't matter, the it does matter, then it only doesn't matter for EDM. Rendering a .wav made in a seqeuncer with mixed sources (VST and samples) sounds better at higher bitrates. I've tested it before. It works. Now go try it yourself, then post back here.

caer to be a little more specific ?

what was the dbfs of the mix. What bit rate , what sample rate, and what where you comparing it to ?

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV it will make a difference. Just not for dance.

what a bunch of cr#p: bitdepth has no musical style preference...

it will always matter.......

Man there's been a proper influx of toothless facebookers recently. Has everyone lost the ability to use their brain?

I dont claim to know anything about bitrate / depth but reading between the lines (i.e. using my cognitive ability) I can work out that what the OP is saying is if bit rate gives a larger dynamic range it's going to mean shit when all your going to do is smash all remaining dynamic range using the latest compressor / hard limiter chain.

Besides everyone knows just turn it up to 11 and hard clip the master, its a cleaner louder then (I'm only half joking).

if this was supposed to be a rant topic (i.e. trance is shite without dynamics anyway)then i would undestandyour view. however this is not how i understood it.

btw I was only being facetious as I've a crappy cold.

OP can you shed some light on what you mean, as I'm thinking you mean about the dynamic range in EDM being smaller than other styles so the debate on bitrate is largely irrelevant.

What are you guys rambling about ?

The end product is going to be 16 bit anyways, and even worse, a 320 kbps mp3 file at best.

imagine being a photographer and being tied to 16bit colout for capturing and editing photo's.....

quote:

Originally posted by Raphie imagine being a photographer and being tied to 16bit colout for capturing and editing photo's.....

Well, yeah.. you could of course render a 192 khz 32bit wave file and keep it on your PC for your own listening pleasure, but the fact remains.. everyone has to follow the 16 bit standard if they are going to have any second part listeners at all.
That is just how it is.
You could argue that the summing would result in a better file, but the marginal difference is so small you are better off thinking about what music to make instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Well, yeah.. you could of course render a 192 khz 32bit wave file and keep it on your PC for your own listening pleasure, but the fact remains.. everyone has to follow the 16 bit standard if they are going to have any second part listeners at all. That is just how it is. You could argue that the summing would result in a better file, but the marginal difference is so small you are better off thinking about what music to make instead.

Even when reducing to a lower resolution, it's still better to have a high resolution master.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Even when reducing to a lower resolution, it's still better to have a high resolution master.

Yeah, but how much effect does it really have to export a master that is 24/32 bit ?

I remember exporting a 192khz, 32 bit floating file for a master engineer once and we both thought it sounded maybe just slightly better, without being able to point finger as to what it was.

But once rendered down to 16 bit, would it have sounded worse if the initial file was 16 bit instead of 32 ?

I would say, definitely not.

I`d say the difference is totally inaudible once it is rendered back to 16 bit, but sure thing, it probably wont hurt to do it of course.

But by all means, please tell me that exporting at 24 bit actually makes a difference, so i can start doing that with the feeling that im making an actually difference.

Edit: and especially since the track is most likely gonna be played only as mp3.

id stick with 44,1kHz 16bit for one reason. mastering companies and record companies and beatport can fuck up the mp3-rendering. it happened to my last release on a diferent label and the whole release got fucked up, no one understands where the fuckup happened but the mp3 sounds terrible. i think the whole new album from whirloop experienced the same beacuse he renders at 24bit 48kHz, not sure about this one but i remember reading alot about it on JooF forums. stay with 44,1kHz 16bit in your final render to keep away from problems, there are many people out there not able to do their work right so if u can make it easier for them do it to avoid shit like I experienced!!! Recording synths etc, do what u like.

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