The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
16 bit ~ are you there ?
Old 25th August 2007
  #31
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rulesforradicals View Post
Blind testing involved with more than one participant. No astonishing silliness involved. And I concur with hard drive space waste, and like I said, 16-bits sounds fine most of the time--depends on what you're working on.

And I haven't done any real work at 64-bits, just a test for my own benefit and knowledge. I like to know these things for myself, not just go by what others say. I prefer to have an informed opinion.
All you proved with that blind test is you don't know how to set up a proper blind test. There's no difference whatsover.None.Ziltch.Nada.

But you go on and waste that HD space and bandwitdh for no good reason.
Or you could ask someone who actually knows how digital actually works if you want an informed opinion. Like me.Or someone else.
Old 25th August 2007
  #32
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

Is this a pissing contest ? or just a flat out waste of bandwitdh.
Old 25th August 2007
  #33
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
All you proved with that blind test is you don't know how to set up a proper blind test. There's no difference whatsover.None.Ziltch.Nada.

But you go on and waste that HD space and bandwitdh for no good reason.
Or you could ask someone who actually knows how digital actually works if you want an informed opinion. Like me.Or someone else.
Okay, then enlighten us. How does digital actually work?

And if you'd bothered to reread my post I said that I wasn't using 64-bits, therefore not wasting HD space. Not looking for a fight but I know what my ears tell me.

But seriously, if you know something you can tell the class and better inform all of us please go ahead. I'm here to learn, not cause problems.
Old 25th August 2007
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Tibbon's Avatar
I'll use 16 bit audio in csound if i'm just rendering things live. I'll admit keeping it in the value range is sometimes a bitch, but it works ok.

For non-realtime render, 24 bit.
Old 25th August 2007
  #35
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rulesforradicals View Post
Okay, then enlighten us. How does digital actually work?

And if you'd bothered to reread my post I said that I wasn't using 64-bits, therefore not wasting HD space. Not looking for a fight but I know what my ears tell me.

But seriously, if you know something you can tell the class and better inform all of us please go ahead. I'm here to learn, not cause problems.
The signal from the souncard is 24 bit integer max no matter what.

All audio files going into Sonar is going to be converted to 64 bit float (assuming you run 64 bit float.Same priciple applies if you run 32 bit float but i'll ignore that for the moment).

So the only difference with recording at 64 bit is if the conversion is done before the HD or after. The conversion is going to take place no matter what. So net effect is zero. So there's no reason recording anything to disk over 24 bits.

There are some rare cases where it is beneficial to work with a 32 bit float (or 64 for that matter) files but if that's the case you can convert them then. No reason to waste disk space for nothing.
Old 25th August 2007
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LapTop006 View Post
Only on DASH. (Sony 3348)

He just prefers the sound of the 16 bit version.
Ok, my point was that he is still using 16bit recording, why would the format matter?
Old 25th August 2007
  #37
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
The signal from the souncard is 24 bit integer max no matter what.

All audio files going into Sonar is going to be converted to 64 bit float (assuming you run 64 bit float.Same priciple applies if you run 32 bit float but i'll ignore that for the moment).

So the only difference with recording at 64 bit is if the conversion is done before the HD or after. The conversion is going to take place no matter what. So net effect is zero. So there's no reason recording anything to disk over 24 bits.

There are some rare cases where it is beneficial to work with a 32 bit float (or 64 for that matter) files but if that's the case you can convert them then. No reason to waste disk space for nothing.
Okay, sure. I have no problem with that. Now how do you do a blind test?
Old 27th August 2007
  #38
Gear Nut
 
Dozerbabar's Avatar
The only difference between 16-bit nad 24-bit is actually the dynamic range! As long as you never use more than the dynamic range of the 16-bit system (96 dB) there should be NO difference in sound quality, though this is the common "knowledge" amongst people.

Is suggest you all google Nika Aldrich and read his book about this theme before beating the crap out of me
Old 27th August 2007
  #39
Lives for gear
 
deve's Avatar
 

Higer bit depth does give you more finesse on your dynamic range. It is not true that there's no differece in sound quality. Lower bit rates result in more harmonic distortion and need more dither to eliminate the correlated distortion. Lower bitrates are more of a problem if lots of further processing is involved. Each step of processing causes more truncation, thus more harmonic distortion. Of course 16 bit has a sound. Just like 8 bit has a sound, and some people love it. Recording is an art and it's subjective. Whatever works is fine.
Old 27th August 2007
  #40
???

Quote:
64 was the bomb. Suddenly a quiet noise floor, thick lows, sparkling highs. I think a higher bit rate might be more important than the sample rate. At least to my ears. But the file size--whew!!!
and you can hear aliens wispering on diffrent solar systems..


Old 27th August 2007
  #41
Here for the gear
 

I think I'm just going back to 8-bit and say to heck with everything else...
Old 27th August 2007
  #42
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozerbabar View Post
The only difference between 16-bit nad 24-bit is actually the dynamic range! As long as you never use more than the dynamic range of the 16-bit system (96 dB) there should be NO difference in sound quality


So if I record something at 16 bit, then record that onto something else at 24 bit... theres no difference? Genuine question.

gd
Old 28th August 2007
  #43
Gear Addict
 

forget it......
Old 28th August 2007
  #44
Lives for gear
 
John Suitcase's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodDamn View Post
So if I record something at 16 bit, then record that onto something else at 24 bit... theres no difference? Genuine question.

gd
If you're asking whether loading a 16bit file into a 24bit project has any benefits, I'd say probably not. But if you're going to add more tracks, or do a lot of processing, then 24bit would likely be better.

I think that bit depth and sample rate work together, so saying 16 bit sucks or even 8 bit sucks may not be the whole picture. Recording at 24bit, but 44.1k is going to sound different, and possibly less hi-fi than 16bit at 96k.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump
Forum Jump