Who matches bit-depth?

[strat65]

I record to a DAW through a MOTU 24i. The MOTU manual says that the unit outputs a 24-bit data stream. If this is the case, would it be better to set my DAW recording software to 24-bit (as opposed to 16-bit, which I've been using) so the software doesn't have to take 24-bit data and convert/truncate/dither it?
I record mostly pop and rock acts with very little dynamic range so I thought that I wouldn't use the extra 8-bits (and save hard drive space). But if my MOTU is sending a 24-bit signal to my DAW...
Also, if I do set my DAW to record at 16-bit, what happens to the extra bits, and how does this translate to the actual sound of the signal?

[Billster]

Yep, record your files in 24 bit. HD space is so cheap and you really hear the difference, esp. when using a lot of tracks and plugins.

Otherwise your daw will truncate the last 8 bit, which is much worse than dithering to 16 bit.

Rock on

Bill

[gsharp]

Are you sure the 24i doesn't output 16bits when the software is set to 16 bit? I wouldn't really worry about it either way. If the 24i is recording 24bit and truncating to 16 into the software I don't know that you're any worse off than just recording to 16 in the first place. Perhaps check w/ MOTU re: software bit depth vs. hardware. Do we know that the 24i is 24 bit period? Some a/d's will dither the output when dropping the bit depth down. This will give you some of the benefit of 24bit in your 16bit audio if the 24i does this.

If your tracks have low dynamic range then 16bits should be enough in terms of accurately capturing the audio. Since you're Native, your DSP stuff will most likely be done at 32bit anyway, so there's no DSP benefit to having 24bit audio.

Do your clients have a preference? In this day of cheap hard drive space the extra room that 24bit takes up is usually inconsequential. Might be worth it just to make sure for your clients sake they have the highest bit depth possible.

[7 Hz]

Originally Posted by gsharp

If the 24i is recording 24bit and truncating to 16 into the software you're not any worse off than just recording to 16 in the first place.

Goodness, what a totally incorrect statement.

Truncating is the same as dithering?

Why do people insist on opening their mouths when they don't know what they are talking about?

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by 7 Hz

Goodness, what a totally incorrect statement.

Truncating is the same as dithering?

Why do people insist on opening their mouths when they don't know what they are talking about?

Where in my post does it say that truncating is the same as dithering? You're truncating either way, whether you choose to apply dither is your choice or up to the capabilities of the equipment.

If the entire dynamic range of his audio fits into the first 16bits anyway, you tell me what the difference is. Remember, his DAW is set to 16bit either way. I would of course never recommend just truncating 24bits to 16 if the audio exists at 24 to start, but he's in the slightly unusual situation of having his DAW already set at a lower bit rate than the interface.

[Billster]

Originally Posted by gsharp

If your tracks have low dynamic range then 16bits should be enough in terms of accurately capturing the audio. Since you're Native, your DSP stuff will most likely be done at 32bit anyway, so there's no DSP benefit to having 24bit audio.

You hear a difference even with heavily distorted rock guitars that obviously don´t have very much of a dynamic range.

The more bits you feed your daw (and its plugins) the better the results will be. In the digital world every sort of processing lets the column of numbers become longer, even if you drop the level by 1dB, not to mention a compressor etc. That 32bit internal resolution doesn´t equal out 16bit and 24bit sources.

Cheers,
Bill

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by Billster

You hear a difference even with heavily distorted rock guitars that obviously don´t have very much of a dynamic range.

The more bits you feed your daw (and its plugins) the better the results will be. In the digital world every sort of processing lets the column of numbers become longer, even if you drop the level by 1dB, not to mention a compressor etc. That 32bit internal resolution doesn´t equal out 16bit and 24bit sources.

Cheers,
Bill

Hmmm... I think we just have a completely different understanding of how digital audio works and what is required to capture the source.

Perhaps you should let Andy Wallace and Chris Lord-Alge (just to name 2) what detriment they are doing their projects when they knock every song down to 16bit before they mix it.

Back to his original question about whether it mattered if his interface was set to 16bit or 24bit when he was deliberately recording at 16bit within the software. I'm not familiar with his particular interface, but I'm going to say no.

We're getting into a bit depth debate in general, when the question really just pertains to his specific situation.

[Billster]

Originally Posted by gsharp

Hmmm... I think we just have a completely different understanding of how digital audio works and what is required to capture the source.

Perhaps you should let Andy Wallace and Chris Lord-Alge (just to name 2) what detriment they are doing their projects when they knock every song down to 16bit before they mix it.

Read something about digital audio first.

Ah, that´s the famous CLA-sound ?! I didn´t know it´s that easy

Did you watch CLA do it ? I´d be surprised, why use Digi192 interfaces then ? Use your old creepy 16bit adat bridge

Even if he does it this way, first of all I know a lot of people who don´t do it (Bob Katz being one of them) and second of all CLA doesn´t mix with much with plugins, does he ? The only plug ins he uses are tubes.

Bill

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by Billster

Read something about digital audio first.

Ah, that´s the famous CLA-sound ?! I didn´t know it´s that easy

Did you watch CLA do it ? I´d be surprised, why use Digi192 interfaces then ? Use your old creepy 16bit adat bridge

Even if he does it this way, first of all I know a lot of people who don´t do it (Bob Katz being one of them) and second of all CLA doesn´t mix with much with plugins, does he ? The only plug ins he uses are tubes.

Bill

He mixes off a 3348 and PT Mix when the 3348 is full. Haven't watched him do it. Just talked to his assistant enough times before sending stuff over to know what the setup is.

ANYWAY, back to the original question. Interface at 24, DAW at 16. Any worse than Interface at 16 DAW at 16? I still say no.

[gsharp]

Hey strat65,

I just looked at the MOTU site and they say the 24i/o supports recording at 16,20, and 24bits. So record your project at whatever bit depth you or your clients prefer and you're all set. I don't think there is going to be any sort of problematic interaction between the hardware and software.

[Billster]

Originally Posted by gsharp

He mixes off a 3348 and PT Mix when the 3348 is full. Haven't watched him do it. Just talked to his assistant enough times before sending stuff over to know what the setup is.

ANYWAY, back to the original question. Interface at 24, DAW at 16. Any worse than Interface at 16 DAW at 16? I still say no.

Peace

But I´m sorry to correct you. The original question was "If this is the case, would it be better to set my DAW recording software to 24-bit (as opposed to 16-bit, which I've been using) so the software doesn't have to take 24-bit data and convert/truncate/dither it?" So it´s Interface at 24, DAW at 16. Any worse than Interface at 24, DAW at 24 ?

Simple answer : remain the highest resolution throughout the chain. If your interface delivers 24bits, it´d be plain stupid to dump those 8bits, because in a mix with say 24 tracks, plugins etc. you will hear it.

Bill

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by Billster

Peace

But I´m sorry to correct you. The original question was "If this is the case, would it be better to set my DAW recording software to 24-bit (as opposed to 16-bit, which I've been using) so the software doesn't have to take 24-bit data and convert/truncate/dither it?" So it´s Interface at 24, DAW at 16. Any worse than Interface at 24, DAW at 24 ?

Simple answer : remain the highest resolution throughout the chain. If your interface delivers 24bits, it´d be plain stupid to dump those 8bits, because in a mix with say 24 tracks, plugins etc. you will hear it.

Bill

You are absolutelty correct. The preferred way to 'fix' his dilemna would be to up the DAW to 24. I somehow fixated on the 16 thing and whether or not to worry about it.

back to you.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by strat65

I record to a DAW through a MOTU 24i. The MOTU manual says that the unit outputs a 24-bit data stream. If this is the case, would it be better to set my DAW recording software to 24-bit (as opposed to 16-bit, which I've been using) so the software doesn't have to take 24-bit data and convert/truncate/dither it?
I record mostly pop and rock acts with very little dynamic range so I thought that I wouldn't use the extra 8-bits (and save hard drive space). But if my MOTU is sending a 24-bit signal to my DAW...
Also, if I do set my DAW to record at 16-bit, what happens to the extra bits, and how does this translate to the actual sound of the signal?

If the rest of your gear and your monitoring situation is good, you'll almost certainly hear the difference -- even before you've performed any manipulations on the data.

Most serious DAWs do process internally at a higher bit depth, anyway, although, of course, if they're set to store to disk at 16 bits you'll be truncating the bit depth going into the DAW, adding some extra bits for the internal processing and then truncating again for storage.


The bang-for-buck here is pretty startling, when going from 16 bit to 24 bit.

A 16 bit digital word length allows one of about 65,000 potential values to be stored in that word.

A 24 bit digital word allows one of around 17 million values to be stored. (Every added bit doubles the potential resolution.)

That's quite an increase in potential resolution -- for only a (roughly) 50% increase in storage and processing overhead.

Hard drives are cheap. If you're not balancing big track counts against limited computer resources, I'd move forward into the 21st century and leave the 80's behind.

[BrianT]

Originally Posted by gsharp

Perhaps you should let Andy Wallace and Chris Lord-Alge (just to name 2) what detriment they are doing their projects when they knock every song down to 16bit before they mix it.

Didn't know that about those guys, but I also prefer 16 bits for most music I work on. I've spent a bunch of time A/B'ing and reached that conclusion on my own, without regard to other opinions, so it's funny to see those guys reaching the same conclusions. Now, if I can just get electric guitars to sound like Andy's, I'll be happy. CLA.....not too worried about him

Speaking of conclusions, before anybody jumps to one, I think this issue is HIGHLY dependent upon the specific gear in use. There are many unknowns for most users in their systems, such as whether or not their AD converter switches from/to 16/24 bits in conjunction with software switches. I daresay few people have taken the time to truly compare what we're talking about here in a proper A/B setting with every single variable accounted for. Are you 100% positive that you're comparing one, and only one, difference? Or might there be other changes that are invoked, unknown to you, by the only change you *think* you're making? That happens more often than most people know, and it's given rise to no end of old wive's tales.

In any event, dogmatic statements such as "XYZ is always better than ZYX" have no place when it comes to discussing personal preferences in sound. The mere fact that we're now dealing with digital, and you can conveniently tie everything to a hard number doesn't make dogmatic statements any more valid. When it comes to the sound of music, it's about taste......there is no right or wrong. Parroting dogmatic statements from people who are more concerned with the mathematics of audio than with the emotions of music is counterproductive. At least, it is in my opinion.

Feel free to have your own opinion, but when it comes to what sounds "better" try not to state it as fact.

[Billster]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Feel free to have your own opinion, but when it comes to what sounds "better" try not to state it as fact.

Absolutely. Some demo recordings on 4 track audio cassette recorders sound better than a recording in a top notch studio, because the feeling of the song is being translated better by the sound.

There are no things that sound "better" anyway. Just different. Good point !

But if someone asks for a rule of thumb, I´d still say that you better keep the best possible resolution throughout a project, because I don´t know his music and I don´t know where he´s aiming at. It makes sense to start out with all possible options, so if you want a more "lofi" sound you can mess it up later in the process. There are plugins that crush your bits at will. But you could also go for a high resolution recording, if you notice that "lofi" don´t work with that particular tune.

Bill

[AngeloClematide]

Yesterday i didn't know how to spell engineer, today i'm one myself !!!

[bernieL0max]

Oringal post by gsharp;
If the 24i is recording 24bit and truncating to 16 into the software I don't know that you're any worse off than just recording to 16 in the first place.

As quoted by 7 Hz;
If the 24i is recording 24bit and truncating to 16 into the software you're not any worse off than just recording to 16 in the first place.


If you're going to QUOTE somebody, at least have the decency to include everything they've said, and not paraphrase - twisting their words...



Record at 24-bit, more resolution = higher fidelity, it's a no-brainer. It also give you're DAW more resolution to work with when applying FX etc. Do all of your work in your DAW at 24-bit, then dither down to 16-bit to put on an audio CD.

If you're giving the artist tracks to take to a mastering engineer, give them 24-bit wavs on a data CD/DVD.

just my 2c

Matt

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by bernieL0max

Oringal post by gsharp;
If the 24i is recording 24bit and truncating to 16 into the software I don't know that you're any worse off than just recording to 16 in the first place.

As quoted by 7 Hz;
If the 24i is recording 24bit and truncating to 16 into the software you're not any worse off than just recording to 16 in the first place.


If you're going to QUOTE somebody, at least have the decency to include everything they've said, and not paraphrase - twisting their words...


Matt

In defense of 7 hz I edited my post simultaneous to him quoting me. I realized the absoluteness(?) of my original statement and felt I should qualify it since I can't speak for 100% certain as it pertains to the hardware in question, and then added the bit about checking w/ MOTU. I didn't apprectiate the 'tude in 7 Hz's reply, but he did not twist my words.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by bernieL0max

Record at 24-bit, more resolution = higher fidelity, it's a no-brainer. It also give you're DAW more resolution to work with when applying FX etc. Do all of your work in your DAW at 24-bit, then dither down to 16-bit to put on an audio CD.

If you're giving the artist tracks to take to a mastering engineer, give them 24-bit wavs on a data CD/DVD.

just my 2c

Matt

Bingo!

I've found that, for rock stuff, and songs without a lot of dynamic range, a lot of times I like the sound of 16-bit. But, there's really no reason to not record in 24-bit if you can, just dither down to 16-bit at the end.

[BrianT]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

Bingo!

I've found that, for rock stuff, and songs without a lot of dynamic range, a lot of times I like the sound of 16-bit. But, there's really no reason to not record in 24-bit if you can, just dither down to 16-bit at the end.

Bit depth in the multitrack phase vs bit depth in the final 2 track mix stage are not the same thing, and may well not yield equal results, depending on the system. I've played with that on some pretty complex mixes by re-rendering 24 bit multitrack files in place to 16 bits with and without dithering, after the mix was finished. It's pretty easy to explore your own preferences here without too much effort, which it sounds like you've done. I wish more people would trust their own ears instead of what they read.

In any event, I commend you on using your own ears to decide, instead of just assuming a bigger number is the sound you're looking for. I've been doing this for a while now and I've got an analogy to analog days for any who care.

Just a general comment here, aimed at no one in particular......Ampex 456 was the standard for years, especially for rock. When 499 came out, it tested better in every parameter. More dynamic range, more linear, lower noise, lower distrotion at a given level, all of which yielded more *detail*, and therefore "better sound" in theory.

Except that most people preferred the sound of 456, dependent upon genre, but especially for rock. Not so different from this discussion, IMO. Before you decide that digital and analog are different so my analogy isn't valid, keep in mind that my point is not about digital vs analog. It's about the variations in different tape formulation or bit depth, either one, comprising a sonic pallete to choose from. I think it's wiser to avoid a one-size-fits=all, dogmatic approach. Listen for a while, without preconceptions.Decide what you like the sound of.

How do you think Andy Wallace came to his conclusions?

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by BrianT

How do you think Andy Wallace came to his conclusions?

He read about it on Gearslutz, how'd ya think he did it?

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Bit depth in the multitrack phase vs bit depth in the final 2 track mix stage are not the same thing, and may well not yield equal results, depending on the system. I've played with that on some pretty complex mixes by re-rendering 24 bit multitrack files in place to 16 bits with and without dithering, after the mix was finished. It's pretty easy to explore your own preferences here without too much effort, which it sounds like you've done. I wish more people would trust their own ears instead of what they read.

Yuppers. I like mixing at 24, because it sounds to me like I'm getting more clarity and depth, which is important to me when I'm adding things like reverb and light compression...I dither down to 16 at the end most of the time (even when I don't necessarily have to, ie internet files) because it sounds like it gives me more...dare I say...warmth? Does anyone else hear this?

[Billster]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

Yuppers. I like mixing at 24, because it sounds to me like I'm getting more clarity and depth, which is important to me when I'm adding things like reverb and light compression...

same with me

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

I dither down to 16 at the end most of the time (even when I don't necessarily have to, ie internet files) because it sounds like it gives me more...dare I say...warmth? Does anyone else hear this?

The change of sound you apply via dithering depends highly on the dither algo you use. I didn´t check out the Crane Song Dither CD yet, but I heard very good things about it.

Bill

[AlexLakis]

When I dither down nowadays, it's usually via an L3 on the masterbus (type 1). Comments on the L3's dither vs. other favorite dither algorithms? (Gonna post a new thread about this)

[strat65]

Thanks for the replies...

GSHARP, I have the 24i, not the 24i/o.

I just got off the phone with MOTU and they said that the 24i ONLY outputs a 24-bit data stream to the DAW. So it would appear that I need to find out what Cubase does to a 24-bit data stream when set to record at 16-bit. (Does it dither, truncate, etc.) I love curling up with a good manual at the end of the day...

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by strat65

Thanks for the replies...

GSHARP, I have the 24i, not the 24i/o.

I just got off the phone with MOTU and they said that the 24i ONLY outputs a 24-bit data stream to the DAW. So it would appear that I need to find out what Cubase does to a 24-bit data stream when set to record at 16-bit. (Does it dither, truncate, etc.) I love curling up with a good manual at the end of the day...

Ah, ok. Couldn't find the 24i on their site so I assumed it was the 24i/o. I guess the next call is to steinberg

I've been poking around trying to find a definitive answer to this 24bit a/d =>16bit DAW conundrum. Everything I'm seeing indicates that the 16 most significant bits of the 24 bit word with the a/d set to 24bit and all 16bits of the 16bit word that would be generated if the converter could be switched to 16 bit are numerically the same. Assuming you want to record at 16, I don't see how this is any worse than being able to set the a/d to 16 to match the software.

Maybe Max from Apogee or Dan Lavry or someone else who makes a/d's with multiple/switchable bitrate outputs can chime in and say for sure.