quote:

Originally posted by palm why dont u just stick with 16bit? its a good standard and if ur not happy with the results u get with it its beacuse you suck at production, nothing more.

Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please quit flaming and derailing my thread.

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. I do have a very nice monitoring capabilities so that of course helps, but plenty others on this forum have great monitors as well.

If you, and anybody else, don't want to talk about audible differences, preferences, etc. Please move on. This thread was not created to talk about numbers, whats possible or impossible, or anything quantifiable. It's here for pure subjective opinions regarding the topic at hand.

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

___________________
All rhythm evolves around a kick...

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.