|
16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS) (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DjStephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
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. |
There we go.
Are there specific instruments and sounds (I would say frequencies but it is too technical of a term :tongue2) more prone to these audio problems when using just 16 bits? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
There we go.
Are there specific instruments and sounds (I would say frequencies but it is too technical of a term :tongue2) more prone to these audio problems when using just 16 bits? |
How much of a problem it will be depends on the noisiness of your equipment and the volume of the source you are recording. Lower source volume or noisier equipment will make it more of a problem. Recording through a mic will normally be noisier than recording directly through audio as with a synthesizer, so I guess vocals or any "live" instrument played by a person and picked up by a mic.
This really has nothing to do with representing any particular frequency range, whether bass, mids, or highs. |
|
|
| Pjotr G |
care to elaborate on the noise floor thing?
When you record something (analog, i.e. through audio cables), noise is recorded along with it. The noise is in the signal, and it is recorded, regardless of what format you record it to.
I realise that higher bit rates allow for more dynamic precision, how does that relate to recorded noise?
Also interesting; dithering (a processing technique commonly applied when converting from higher bitrate to lower bitrate) intentionally adds noise to the recording. This is done to make sure that quiet parts of the signal are actually are increased in volume, so that they fall above the lower precision threshold (so they can be supported by the lower bitrate). This implies that recording something directly to 16 bit will be less noisy than recording to 24 bit, and then converting to 16 bit. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr G
care to elaborate on the noise floor thing?
When you record something (analog, i.e. through audio cables), noise is recorded along with it. The noise is in the signal, and it is recorded, regardless of what format you record it to.
I realise that higher bit rates allow for more dynamic precision, how does that relate to recorded noise? |
It is my understanding that the system you are recording on will have less noise if you are working in a higher bit rate, so you will have less additional noise added to whatever is already being added by the cables (and the room, if you are recording through a mic). Is that incorrect?
| quote: | | Also interesting; dithering (a processing technique commonly applied when converting from higher bitrate to lower bitrate) intentionally adds noise to the recording. This is done to make sure that quiet parts of the signal are actually are increased in volume, so that they fall above the lower precision threshold (so they can be supported by the lower bitrate). This implies that recording something directly to 16 bit will be less noisy than recording to 24 bit, and then converting to 16 bit. |
How much noise does the dithering process actually add, though? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
I respect your posts, but you have completely derailed this thread. There is a big reason why I put no tech specs, in capital letters, on the thread title. |
Excuse me, but "16 bit" and "24 bit" ARE technical specs. That is exactly what they are - technical specifications for a digital audio encoding!
This is like kindergarten. Don't bother me with facts or arguments, just tell us how it made you feel. You're asking for soft answers to questions for which there are hard answers; people aren't "avoiding" your question, they're just giving correct answers as opposed to subjective and made up answers.
I proposed a test that, unlike yours, would actually prove something substantial. I had to get into "tech specs" in order to explain why. If you want to go through with this test, fine, let us know. Otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to invent creative but spurious answers to a question that's not really a question.
Is this a legitimate discussion, or a soapbox? You choose. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
How much noise does the dithering process actually add, though? |
Conversion noise is relatively constant no matter what algorithm is used; dithering just adds a different kind of noise.
It's no different from shrinking an image down to half-size. No matter what you do, you're losing information. But some approaches are better for different types of images (i.e. photos vs. line art). If you know you're going to lose a certain amount of something, then all you can do is choose what to lose. |
|
|
| evo8 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Excuse me, but "16 bit" and "24 bit" ARE technical specs. That is exactly what they are - technical specifications for a digital audio encoding!
This is like kindergarten. Don't bother me with facts or arguments, just tell us how it made you feel. You're asking for soft answers to questions for which there are hard answers; people aren't "avoiding" your question, they're just giving correct answers as opposed to subjective and made up answers.
I proposed a test that, unlike yours, would actually prove something substantial. I had to get into "tech specs" in order to explain why. If you want to go through with this test, fine, let us know. Otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to invent creative but spurious answers to a question that's not really a question.
Is this a legitimate discussion, or a soapbox? You choose. |
Exactly. Do the test that Diginut proposed and be done with it. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Excuse me, but "16 bit" and "24 bit" ARE technical specs. That is exactly what they are - technical specifications for a digital audio encoding!
This is like kindergarten. Don't bother me with facts or arguments, just tell us how it made you feel. You're asking for soft answers to questions for which there are hard answers; people aren't "avoiding" your question, they're just giving correct answers as opposed to subjective and made up answers.
I proposed a test that, unlike yours, would actually prove something substantial. I had to get into "tech specs" in order to explain why. If you want to go through with this test, fine, let us know. Otherwise, I don't feel particularly inclined to invent creative but spurious answers to a question that's not really a question.
Is this a legitimate discussion, or a soapbox? You choose. |
I see. Could you then tell me why people always talk about that "analog" and "warm sound ? Do it in specs (I already know the answer, so you really don't have to bother)
I don't understand how so many could say analog sounds so much better when digital is a much more pure process. Maybe those idiots need to quit worrying about all those distortion and VCO's numbers and start paying attention to the fact that digital sound is superior because it doesn't have to worry about deteriorating signal factors.
I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money! |
|
|
| Akridrot |
It's not that analog is dirty lo-fi, it's that analog harmonic distortion is considered pleasing to the ear. Digital purity bothers some people because everything sounds too processed[.
Combine that with a strong nostalgia for vintage sounds (and why not? especially if many of the greatest songs you've ever heard were recorded in an analog format) and you will see why some people are die hard analog enthusiasts. |
|
|
| evo8 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
I see. Could you then tell me why people always talk about that "analog" and "warm sound ? Do it in specs (I already know the answer, so you really don't have to bother)
I don't understand how so many could say analog sounds so much better when digital is a much more pure process. Maybe those idiots need to quit worrying about all those distortion and VCO's numbers and start paying attention to the fact that digital sound is superior because it doesn't have to worry about deteriorating signal factors.
I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money! |
Maybe those idiots should go and make some music???
Honestly, the odd time i go onto the EDM section on gearslutz for example, these guys are going on about this juno and that juno, theyll have all their gear listed in their sigs, but, no music to be heard...
Im guilty of it myself, worrying about this synth and that synth, which compressor/eq/reverb etc etc instead of concentrating on making some decent tunes.
The more mixes i do the more i realise that half of the thats discussed on the various messageboards isnt really that important when it comes to making a decent track. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money! |
If you don't like the sounds that come out of analog synths, then don't buy them, but when you crap on about "inferior sound" as if your opinion is objective truth, then you are being just as silly as the people who say all digital synths suck. Personally, I like a lot of sounds from both worlds, but if you prefer all digital stuff, more power to you. No need to get so worked up about it. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
I'm looking at all these old, worthless analog synths on eBay that produce inferior sound and can't for the life of my understand why somebody would want to buy this crap and spend so much more money! |
Same reason some people may buy an old Stradivarius violin or Gibson Les Paul guitar, rather than a brand new 2009 model. Each piece of equipment is going to have its own particular sound. If the artist wants that particular sound, they're going to choose that particular piece of equipment, even if you think they're an idiot.
For you and your music, yes, these old analog synths are worthless.
For someone else, they are priceless and worth every cent.
It may be interesting to look at why you're getting so worked up about this - do you get worked up about prices of other things you don't care about? For example, if a new women's perfume sells for a thousand dollars in stores? I, for example, don't really mind what price a given Picasso painting sells for at an auction. It's a world (the art buying world) I don't care that much about. |
|
|
|
|
