Codemonkey wrote: OK so 24bit does actually provide greater detection of volume changes in the range that 16bit occupies.

Oddly enough, yes. Above, say, 60db either bitrate is so accurate reguarding levels that it don't make much difference anyway. But if you were to take some audio with a range of -60 to -96 in both 16bit and 24bit and crank them up to audible levels, the 24bit one would sound much better. Although, deep down I'm sure you already knew this.

Ah here we go, if I did my math right, the sample values in 24bit represent a change of .0000011920928955078125 volts.
Haha; more useless nerdy info. :wink:

GeckoMusic wrote:
Bottom line, full scale in 16 bit is the same as full scale in 24 bit. The difference is in the least significant bits.

Thank you for stating that a little more eloquently and less confusing than my attempt above.

Lovin this discussion...

Reggie wrote: Ah here we go, if I did my math right, the sample values in 24bit represent a change of .0000011920928955078125 volts.
Haha; more useless nerdy info. :wink:

As a fellow nerd, how did you calculate that value?

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

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.

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

*is a spoil sport*

Btw, totally digging this thread.

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.

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....

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

.00030518509?

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

It's Wally in this country.

And evidently in Greener's too.

Space wrote: [quote=Reggie]... 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 8-)

even a blind squirrel....
;)

...would know the difference between an hyphen and an apostrophe. :P

well, I knew it needed something.

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

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?

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

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.

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

Ahh, yes. But then I would need something to put it in. And another bag to carry that around in. And I'm not sure I can use my USB to record and store...

Plus the mp3's I make from 16bit sources sound better than ones made from 24bit. Don't ask me why.

Plus, when I make CD's they are 16bit and if I down-sample with my computer it sounds like ass nine times out of ten, don't know why either. And if I try and play it through something 24bit and re-record it through something 16 bit that's mental and sounds worse than starting at 16bit...

I still don't exactly get the maths, I don't think 16 bit and 24 bit are only different by the accuracy they look at the voltage but in the range of possible voltages. So when you convert back to 16 from 24 you don't just chop off the 8 least significant bits, it has to be extrapolated or something.

I am still as confused as the day I started asking about bit depth. Any tests I do are mostly BS because I cannot generate a repeatable sound and I'm working with an Edirol UA-25.

Also I'm like Platinum, non-reactive and dense.

Greener wrote:
Plus the mp3's I make from 16bit sources sound better than ones made from 24bit. Don't ask me why.
.

Don't make mp3s from 24 bit sources; dither them down to 16 bit first.

Here it is in a nutshell:
Record 24 bit files
Mix down to 24 bit files
Master them, then save as 16 bit files (using dither) ready to burn onto CD or encode as MP3.

The important point is that you only drop to 16 bit once as the final step, and you do so via your best available dither algo.

...ie Voxengo's free version of R8Brain?

R8brain will only change bit depth when you change sample rate too.

Is triangular dithering normal?

Drumlea wrote: Hi all,

I have a knowledge problem.

I have been recording in a Boss BR900CD and it records in 24 bit. I've done 2 tracks for a friend of mine and she is going to put them on her forthcoming debut album. Obviously I'm relatively new to recording.

She recorded most of the album at a commercial studio here in Ireland. The studio wants to mix the tracks and needs them as 24bit. I'm not sure how to give them a cd of 24bit tracks.

1. How do I get a 24bit cd to the studio.
2. Would it be worth my while investing in a Masterlink in the long run as I hope to do a lot of tracking, mixing for local artists.

Sorry for the long post, all advice will be greatly appreciated,

Brian.

Don't buy the masterlink to create 24 bit session files. Export and burn them on a cd-r as BWF (broadcast wave files) so they can sync up immediately and mix . The masterlink is a good mixing/mastering deck but it won't help you with pq code editing so if you want to make perfect cds use software. the ML will make however good 24 bit audio cds (in stereo) :wink: