Is dithering a must???

[Cellotron]

Very good reading explaining all aspects of dither in very easy to understand wording is at Digital Audio Explained

While capturing at 16bit and applying dither at the ADC is one option I find it does not provide as flexible or better sounding results than applying dither as the absolutely final stage in the DAW.

Some ADC's which have dither options onboard are the Mytek Stereo96 (using either TPDF or their own "Super Shaper" algorithm) and the Lavry Blue.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[jayfrigo]

Dither is a must when reducing wordlength unless you prefer distortion. Dither will be less colored than a trip through converters, but you may like the colorations of coverters. However, to get the best DAC/ADC pair, you're looking at about $16,000 for a pair of Lavry Golds. And, to top it off, all new converters use 24 bit chips, so you'll need dither for those outputs, often included in the converter. If you found a very old converter that was 16 bits on output, you really wouldn't want to hear it.

If it's really bothering you, I think your best bet is to try a bunch of dither and noise shaping types until you find one you like. Try the three POWr types, the izotope, the Waves, plain TPDF, Apogee UV22, etc. and see which one suits you best. Sometimes different program material sounds better with one or another, so it doesn't hurt to have options available. It can be a pretty subtle and sometimes arcane thing to be comparing however.

[davidperetz]

When i listen to the mastering chain in my DAW i am already listening to the sound of the converters. whenever i put the dithering in (waves, uv22) i hear the sound changing for worst. i hear the loss.
so instead of dithering and down sampling (when i get 48K or 96k Mix masters) my idea is to have another A/D converter that will convert what I'm hearing to 16 bit/44.1K ( B.T.W is there an internal dithering going if the converter has 24 bit chips? you lost me there as i don't want to apply dithering at the output of my DAW and no Dithering to the input of my 2 DAW with the the 16b/44.1k format. my idea is to go d/a from whatever bit/sampling frequency i have into an a/d 16/44.1k in the second DAW)
I'm sure modern a/d converters can make a very good 16 bit conversation even if they work on 24 bit's chips or more.
After the amazing experience and clarity i had when i switched from mixing ITB to OTB, i thought that i will get better result's when recording the mastering chain to another DAW than to render it ITB without the problems of dithering and down sampling.

[lucey]

If you're asking about a DA AD pass instead of SRC that can work well with good converters, yes.

If you're already 24/44.1 and simply dithering to 16 bit the loss is pretty small. What dither do you use?

If you're mastering then 24 bit makes the most sense as you may need to fade or change level by a few tenths of a db, best at 24 bits.

If you have 24 bit converters and you only capture 16 bits in the DAW then you are not dithering, but why not?

[Chrisac]

This might sound crazy to you but why not record the mix back in to your daw through its own ins and outs and make that recording 16 bit and check to see if it comes out better than the dithered one. If it does you can then just drag the file from the audio files folder and you have your 16bit non dithered version. I used to record mixes like this straight to sound forge in real time from my daw.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by davidperetz

I'm sure modern a/d converters can make a very good 16 bit conversation even if they work on 24 bit's chips or more.

Same problem as in your DAW. If the AD works at 24 bits, you either need to dither to 16, or you'll have truncation distortion recording only 16 of the 24 bits it's giving you. Same operation, different place.

[davidperetz]

i must admit I'm surprised. to think that whenever i record something to my DAW even single tracks on 16 or 20 bits i have a dithering going in ???
This sucks.
i Thought that A/D have a different approach to each bit range.
Maybe ill use my old Adat converters, they were good for 16 bit.
anyone selling very good old 16 bit converters??
it's like the AKAI S900 which had conversion with a sound of it's own way better than most samplers i tried after with higher bit resolution.
still I'm surprised.
ill write to Lynx to see if there's a dithering going on while I'm recording at 16bit

Thanks People you've been very helpful.

[Bob Olhsson]

Anytime dither sounds worse, either it's broken or you are monitoring more than 16 bits and not really listening to 16 bit truncation.

[dynomike]

David, a higher bit rate correctly dithered to 16 bit allows for *more* dynamic range than just a 16 bit converter on its own. I have never found anyone to argue the opposite; its just science.

Maybe the sound of old 16 bit converters will sound better to you.. but I've never had a problem with the sound of the POW-R 3 dithering. Feel free to try whatever.

+1 for bobs post above.

-Mike

[prolearts]

My partner was at a mastering panel and some engineer from Sony(?) I believe was giving a talk and confessed that he did NOT dither his final 16-bit output for the CD master. It sounded like he knew this was heresy, but also said it just sounded better. With most of today's music not even getting much more than about 18dB RMS below full-range on the digital scale, perhaps truncation distortion just isn't the concern that it once was to some people.

Does anyone else out there ever do this (and would you admit it)?

J. Ward
Chicago Mastering Service

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by prolearts

My partner was at a mastering panel and some engineer from Sony(?) I believe was giving a talk and confessed that he did NOT dither his final 16-bit output for the CD master. It sounded like he knew this was heresy, but also said it just sounded better. With most of today's music not even getting much more than about 18dB RMS below full-range on the digital scale, perhaps truncation distortion just isn't the concern that it once was to some people.

Does anyone else out there ever do this (and would you admit it)?

J. Ward
Chicago Mastering Service

Geez - it doesn't take much to learn for oneself the advantages of applyring dither: all you have to do is listen to some fades or reverb tails that disappear very slowly into the noise floor - really crank it up in some headphones - at 24bit the sound disappears smoothly. With truncation to 16bit you'll hear it now sounds like its breaking up and fitzing out. With good dither algorithms applied to the least significant bit what you hear a little bit of noise but the distortion and fitzing that you get with truncation is pretty much gone. So - not as good as the 24bit source - but a heckuva lot closer to this source than truncation gives you.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[acorneau]

Originally Posted by prolearts

My partner was at a mastering panel and some engineer from Sony(?) I believe was giving a talk and confessed that he did NOT dither his final 16-bit output for the CD master.

I'm pretty sure that was David Kutch at last year's TapeOpCon.

After hearing that from him I've tried it a few times. For loud/rock/edgy projects it can maintain some of the grit/edge. I wouldn't do it for more "delicate" projects though.

The effect is about as profound as selecting one type of dither over another (read: very subtle).

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by acorneau

I'm pretty sure that was David Kutch at last year's TapeOpCon.

After hearing that from him I've tried it a few times. For loud/rock/edgy projects it can maintain some of the grit/edge. I wouldn't do it for more "delicate" projects though.

The effect is about as profound as selecting one type of dither over another (read: very subtle).

I believe David mainly works on hip-hop projects - in which case for many tracks I seriously doubt whether the file is dithered or truncated makes that huge of a difference to the end listener - but to me it's such an easy step to do and there's really no good reasons not to do it that I can think of.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[prolearts]

In my experience (in a very low noise control room), I agree that truncation distortion is AT LEAST as audible as any degradation from dither and I haven't personally gone without. However, in this age where clipping an A/D is a valid "musical" decision to make, not dithering certainly doesn't seem any more transgressive (and arguably much less so to the average listener in the average environment who would probably NEVER hear bits flipping at the end of a fade). When you think about it, they are both adding distortion, one at the upper limit of the scale, one at the lower. Which one is a listener going to hear more? If no dither really sounds better to you, JUST DO IT™.

best,
J. Ward
Chicago Mastering Service

[bradstanton]

hello
this problem used to make me crazy also..even before the final stage it seemed the more tracks i added the more(squashed) the mix became.
i now run 4 pairs of stereo outputs (vs. the main out).depending on the song it might go something like out(1+2)=drums and bass...out(3+4)=guitars..out(5+6)=keys and synths..out 7+8=vocals.
as soon as i did this the whole mix (opened up).
after the mix is where i want it i take a line from the main outs and record them on a separate daw at 16bit 44.1k..
hope this helps
brad

[Chris Kress]

Does anyone think that nice, lush themal noise from a mixing console can provide the dither. You know it is way higher in level than dither maybe -70 on my wavelab meter.

P.S. I am not a mastering engineer, just an interested mixer/engineer..

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

Does anyone think that nice, lush themal noise from a mixing console can provide the dither. You know it is way higher in level than dither maybe -70 on my wavelab meter.

P.S. I am not a mastering engineer, just an interested mixer/engineer..

Self-dithering is a possibility in some cases, though often there is not enough energy present at very high frequencies to completely decorrelate, and the audible footprint is usually quite a bit larger than standard dither.