|
Rendering in 24bit
|
View this Thread in Original format
| G-Con |
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? |
|
|
| Eldritch |
| 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. |
|
|
| phantom limb |
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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| phantom limb |
| 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. |
|
|
| palm |
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. |
|
|
| 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! |
|
|
| Lucidity |
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. |
|
|
| thecYrus |
| 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... |
|
|
| Magnus |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 ;) |
|
|
|
|
