what do you think about bit-rate?

[worshipguitar94]

do you think there's a big difference between 16-bit uncompressed vs 24-bit? What do you guys think here?

[Bob Womack]

I can hear the difference, but I've lived in pro recording for years. When we transitioned to 16-bit, it was from analog with Dolby SR, which was superior to digital in most ways except for noise floor, high-end relaxation and some other quasi-esoteric characteristics. To my ears, 24-bit is allowing digital to catch back up.

Of course, your results may vary...

Bob

[Kevin Michael]

Only a difference of 8 bits. Most ears can't detect the sonic difference. CD quality is 16bit.

I helped a friend who's a fine musician and player record a few of his songs. He had some nice gear so we recorded at 32bit floating point. Acoustic guitar and vocal. Mixed on the desk at 32bit but I also made a file copy of the same mix but dithered to 16bit to put on a CD. Next day at his studio we listened to it, and he was quite pleased with it, talking of the superiority in sound of 32bit recording. We were actually listening to the 16bit file as the 32bit mix resided in a different directory on the machine than the 16bit CD mix. Guess it's all in the listener's ear.

[marklyn]

Originally Posted by Kevin Michael

We were actually listening to the 16bit file as the 32bit mix resided in a different directory on the machine than the 16bit CD mix.

Did you open the 32bit to compare?
I'm definately in the more digital information is better camp.

[meridian]

Originally Posted by Kevin Michael

Only a difference of 8 bits. Most ears can't detect the sonic difference.

Ah yes, but what a difference those 8 bits makes!

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Ok, but its one man's opinion, not the gospel according to Tweak!* I was a believer for the past decade that 16/44.1 was the way to go and I have recently changed my mind.* It's really a matter of what you are recording and what your gear can re-produce.* If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there.* Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system.* The Bass will be tighter, and the vocals may sound "airier". However, if you are going to be doing a loud radio-ready, levels on the ceiling piece, my opinion is that the benefits will be less audible.* But there are other benefits as well.* Because I do all my recording on computers with sequencers, 24 bit files seem easier to work with.* They have more headroom for tweaking.* One can record with less compression.* Once inside the sequencer, audio files may be converted to 32 bit for processing and converted back to 24 or 16 on the way out.* My advice is to record at 24 bits/44.1 at minimum and go up to a sample rate of 88.2 or 96 if you think your material warrants it (and you have the disk space).

[Bob Womack]

I don't know if you remember the Eagle's interviews from the end of the seventies, but they reflected a growing dissillusionment with the delivery medium (vinyl albums) of the period. Recording technology was getting better and better and yet the consumer was getting this final product with high-crosstalk between channels, EXTREMELY high distortion, and an incredible combination of high noise and a low dynamic range. Thus the recording, mixing, and mastering media were far superior to the final consumer product. It was breaking the hearts of the musicians to hear their work in people's living rooms.

Then came the 16-bit CD, considered from the first to be a consumer compromise, and while distortion, crosstalk, and noise were taken care of, there were howls from listeners that the final product wasn't as "open" sounding or "three-D", and that imaging wasn't as good. As it turns out, many of the imaging problems were taken care of as the CD players we developed. However, it took nearly a decade for the mastering business to adjust to the new medium. For most of the eighties, many of the drum sounds popular music came from cheesy 8-bit drum synths which had no upper end harmonics available. So you had remarkable clarity, but little prettiness.

Then, in the nineties, the digital drums were shed for actual acoustic ones and the high-end was refined. All the while, the professional market, knowing that CD and 16-bit were compromises, was working on better recording solutions with better clarity, actually trying to catch up with the best charateristics of analog recording desks and media. 24-bit hasn't achieved that and pros are now playing with 96-bit and floating-bit recording. It is, however, generally acknowledged that recording at a high bit rate and then mastering to 16-bit for delivery still yields many of the benefits of the higher bit rate, as described in the quote above.

If you listen to the first-ever recorded film score, Star Trek the Motion Picture, and follow that with a modern score such as that of Lord of the Rings, you can hear the difference immediately. The first digital score was recorded at 16-bit, the most recent ones are at 24 or higher. Listen to the trumpets. They sound boxy in the first score and brilliant in the recent one. That's a combination of recording and mastering technology and practice in action.

Bob

[beach bob]

Yes, Bob, but that still doesn't explain what ZZTop did to the drums on all their back catalog CD releases


Seriously Bob, thanks for all your informative posts, I always learn something reading your missives / explanations

[Bob Womack]

Hehehehehe. They remixed the suckers, just like they did with Allman Brothers at Fillmore East when they put out The Fillmore Concerts. People are still bothered by the reduced bass on the new Fillmores, though I think they are great mixes. I do miss the guy in the crowd yelling, "Whipping Post!" For people with other ideas, thank goodness that the original mixes of Fillmore were remastered and made available. My son picked that up for me.

Bob

[utah]

Higher bit rates are always preferred.

To correctly answer the question, you need to expand on it.

Are you looking at specific recording solutions? Is price a factor. Are there other trade-offs you are making, in order to accomadate 24 bit recording?

For instance. In my case, I went with a DAW that has 24 bit A/D's, but dithers down to 16 bit for recording. It fit my budget, and it offered excellent features in other areas, such as simultaneous ins and improved EQ'ing and Effects processing over more expensive units that suffered in some of those areas...but offered 24 bit recording.

There is so much that goes into making a home recording, I don't think Bit-rate is as important as the other recording techniques which will need to be mastered.

But, for the pros....I completely understand why they seek higher bit rates. The higher the bit rate, the smoother/more detailed the digital wav form and the greater the dynamic range.