Creating 24bit CDs, Masterlink, only option??

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:32 pm

Wish I was smart enough to say "because I invented this stuff," but I'm not... Mad

I think this article does a pretty good job of it, although there is a typo in one of his numbers (see if you can find it, weee!):
http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_98-08.html

Quote:

The analog waveform consists of changes in voltage over time. By now you have all seen audio waveforms in some sort of audio editing software. Lets start at the zero crossing point, the line in the middle that the waveform crosses when going from positive to negative. Right on this line is zero voltage. If you short out the input to your converter and record, you will get a flat line at exactly zero. At the loudest value, up where the waveform clips, the value is usually +10 volts. The clipped waveform at the bottom is –10 volts. With 16-bit information, there are 65,536 steps between the negative clipping point and the positive clipping point. This means that each step is equal to 10 volts/ 32,767 steps, or approximately .0003518509476 volts per step. Each step is represented by a bit. When counting in bits, each bit is exactly twice the size of the bit before it. The smallest bit has a value of 1, the next bit a value of 2, the next bit a value of 4, then 8, then 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1034, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16,384, 32,768, and finally 65,536. Here is where the linearity comes in.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:07 am

1034 should be 1024.
Wally is in the top left hand corner.

*is a spoil sport*

Btw, totally digging this thread.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:59 am

Greener wrote:

1034 should be 1024.
Wally is in the top left hand corner.

*is a spoil sport*

Btw, totally digging this thread.

It would be "Waldo"...

Wally is the troublesome moose that gives Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo a hard time.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:12 pm

Greener wrote:

1034 should be 1024.
Wally is in the top left hand corner.

*is a spoil sport*

Btw, totally digging this thread.

Haha, actually I hadn't noticed that typo. OK, there are TWO typos in there. The other one can not be found just by looking at it....

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:12 pm

Reggie wrote:

... 10 volts/ 32,767 steps, or approximately .0003518509476 volts per step.

.00030518509?

edit: Also, the contraction "lets" should be apostrophenated.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:47 pm

It's Wally in this country.

And evidently in Greener's too.

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:47 pm

Space wrote:

Reggie wrote:

... 10 volts/ 32,767 steps, or approximately .0003518509476 volts per step.

.00030518509?

edit: Also, the contraction "lets" should be hyphenated.

Niiiiiice! Bonus points to you Thumbs Up

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:52 pm

even a blind squirrel....
Wink

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:38 pm

...would know the difference between an hyphen and an apostrophe. Razz

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:49 pm

well, I knew it needed something.

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:10 am

This poor gentlemen indicated the beginner studio wanted 24-bit files for their mixing. Too bad they don't stop by Recording.org?

Since my math sucks I don't care a "bit" about this. What I care about is tape speed, 7.5, 15 & 30 IPS and its digital equivalent, sample rate. That's where the resolution is.

I have made many fine arts/classical music recordings where bit depth would of course be a primary concern. This is where I believe folks like IIRs & others are confused about my postings of recommending 16-bit. I frequently have foot in mouth disease and frequently "assume" most folks here, inquiring about multitrack mixing/recording, are generally referring to some type of pop music recordings. Not fine arts classical, even though multitrack recording & mixing has been a long-term reality there as well. And as has been pointed out, my responses are frequently tactless. That's my personality flaw. But if it's rock-and-roll? You're talking about a "five DB" dynamic range. That is to say, rock-and-roll, in all its glory, doesn't depend much on dynamic range. On the average hole..... There I go again.

Tactless goof
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:51 pm

That darn noisy rock and roll doesn't alway start out with a 5db dynamic range. No use pushing those lower, blurrier bits to the front when there are plenty of nice clear bits to go around in 24-bit! The 24-bit conversion process simply retains better low-level detail than 16-bit. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying 16-bit is unuseable; but come on, there is no reason to not record and mix in 24-bit if it is available.
If you are going to compare tape speed to sample rate, then why not compare bit depth to track width? Would you record on a 1/2" 16-track machine when you also had a perfectly good 2" 16-track machine available, assuming the tape cost was basically the same?

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:52 am

Reggie staged the obvious. We should all go back to analog recording. That's solved all of our problems here.

I think we need 128 bit recording?? Don't you?

Less is more more or less
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:06 am

I record in 16bit, it's harder to set levels but I don't get headaches trying to make cd's.

Plus I don't exactly play anything special and the only processing that gets done is fade ins and fade outs.

Tape cost isn't an issue, but my HDD fills up slower which means I can spend more time jambing and less time saving for space.

Maybe one day I'll figure out how to dither, maybe.

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:50 am

Remy, now you're just being silly. You are just discounting the facts because you either don't understand them or you don't care to, in which case you are trying to be a nuisance to those of us who do care. So good luck in your future endeavors, and good luck with your analog television set in a few months.

Greener,
here you can have around 250 hrs of 24bit recording at only $0.22/hr. : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148261

This topic sponsored by: