As emphasized in the title, I want to talk about the audible differences here. Not the fact that mp3's will convert it all to 16 bit, and 99.9% of music is spread via mp3, so 24 bit is worthless.

To me, from an audible perspective, I hear quite a difference when working with 16 bit and 24 bit samples. The biggest difference is crispness and clarity. I've got a few loops that literally trip me out when I play them through my AKG because they're so "real sounding" - It's as if my headphones are not even on and the sound is producing itself in perfect harmony inside my brain. Hard to explain!

Even when filtered down to 16bit and mp3'd, I still hear differences. I even hear differences with 32bit, although they are very subtle.

I've actually got a hell of an example of a 16 bit vs. 32 bit track, broken down into mp3, that produces a very noticable difference. The 32bit version has a much richer and fuller bass and is can clearly be distuingished if you have a good monitoring source.

But, let's focus on 24bit here since that seems to be the way things are slowly but surely going. I personally LOVE 24bit sample packs. I think it's why the deadmau5 sample pack is the highest quality pack I have ever heard (and I despise deadmau5) - There is no arguing the audible differences in WAV form, but there is a big argument when arguing the audible differences when the mix is filtered down to mp3. Some will say its impossible for there to be improved quality, because mp3 is 16bit, but I swear that is not true. I can tell with my own ears. How about you and your experiences?

Take a blind test - if you can spot 24 bit being better than 16 bit then work with 24 bit samples.
Dont notice any difference myself really.

___________________
hearthis
soundcloud
youtube

well, that's not quite fair because you're likely using different samples and what are you monitoring with?

Maybe I do need to set up a blind test and filter a 24bit loop down to 16bit and see if people can differentiate.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Even when filtered down to 16bit and mp3'd, I still hear differences. I even hear differences with 32bit, although they are very subtle.

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....

___________________
All rhythm evolves around a kick...

I want to say that fuller bass will not be a product of using a higher bitrate, and would really like to hear the samples that you claim show a big difference in the bass between bitrates. Higher bitrates are useful for two main reasons:

1. You are working with very dynamic (wide range of loud parts to soft parts, i.e. not dance music) material, and want the absolute largest range of volumes possible in order to avoid the noise floor becoming an issue.
2. You are working with lots of individual tracks, and want to avoid the noise floor becoming an issue.

All the addition of bits does in audio processing is allow you to represent a larger range of volumes without the noise floor becoming an issue...

[Edit: As Pjotr G says, it's possible the conversion artifacts are actually enjoyable to you as well.]

32bit FTW lol

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I want to say that fuller bass will not be a product of using a higher bitrate, and would really like to hear the samples that you claim show a big difference in the bass between bitrates. Higher bitrates are useful for two main reasons: 1. You are working with very dynamic (wide range of loud parts to soft parts, i.e. not dance music) material, and want the absolute largest range of volumes possible in order to avoid the noise floor becoming an issue. 2. You are working with lots of individual tracks, and want to avoid the noise floor becoming an issue. All the addition of bits does in audio processing is allow you to represent a larger range of volumes without the noise floor becoming an issue... [Edit: As Pjotr G says, it's possible the conversion artifacts are actually enjoyable to you as well.]

Remind me tomorow and I'll get them up. I gotta crash for now

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley well, that's not quite fair because you're likely using different samples and what are you monitoring with? Maybe I do need to set up a blind test and filter a 24bit loop down to 16bit and see if people can differentiate.

No i think someone needs to upload a few loops, each in 16 bit and 24 bit, and then see if you can tell the difference

___________________
hearthis
soundcloud
youtube

not again. yes it might sound a little better (headroom? dynamics?) but all the shit u get with it? just dont do it imo. stick with 44,1kHz 16bit beacuse its the standard.

In Bob Katz's book he says that when bouncing down to 44.1/16, working at a higher samplerate makes no audible difference to the final file, but working at a higher bitrate does.

16 bit is nice, but 24 bit will give you smoother reverb and delay decays, among other things. It will sound less "stepped" as it drops from one volume level to the next.

24 bit provides a greater advantage to material with a wide dynamic range - classical music would benefit much more than a hard-hitting trance song.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley I've actually got a hell of an example of a 16 bit vs. 32 bit track, broken down into mp3, that produces a very noticable difference. The 32bit version has a much richer and fuller bass and is can clearly be distuingished if you have a good monitoring source.

What dithering algorithm was used?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Everyone knows the pros only use 64bit.

___________________
E = mc²/2

E = mc² is the optical illusion of E = mc²/2

Click me to find out why.