Andy Sneap & Backstage Productions  

Go Back   Ultimate Metal Forum > Heavy Metal Forums > Andy Sneap > F.O.H.
Register FAQ Donate Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

F.O.H. Production tips, techniques, tutorials...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old August 27th, 2007, 07:38 PM   #1 (permalink)
AudioPhile777
Mathew Cohen
 
AudioPhile777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chatsworthingtonshire, CA, USA
Posts: 3,710
Dithering, bouncing... whatever you want to call it... need some help...

Ok... so, a buddy of mine is just getting into recording and he posed an interesting discussion...

I record at 24/48... he records at 16/48... I bounce to 24/48 to pseudo-master my stuff... he bounces to the same bit/sample rate to pseudo-master...

He claims that is gives you more headroom going from 16 to 24 to master...

And, in a way that makes sense... but is it worth it if you're right back out of the 24 into 16 to render it to cd?

if someone could explain the mathematical pros and cons... not just preference, or "I hear this or that difference", but an explanation of the numbers behind it... I would appreciate it...

also, if this has been explained... I wouldn't know how to begin searching for it.
__________________
When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffTD View Post
I don't understand lesbians. I mean I understand lesbians, but I don't understand why virtually every dude is into them. I don't like watching videos of cheeseburgers eat each other - on their own, they're delicious, but once they start eating each other, neither is useful to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahjteam View Post
...its fucking HARD to do as simple stuff as he does and still make it groove like a moose.
AudioPhile777 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 08:14 PM   #2 (permalink)
colonel kurtz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,990
there's absolutely no benefit in converting a 16-bit file to 24-bit. all it does is add 8 bits of nothing.
colonel kurtz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2007, 08:57 PM   #3 (permalink)
AudioPhile777
Mathew Cohen
 
AudioPhile777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chatsworthingtonshire, CA, USA
Posts: 3,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by colonel kurtz View Post
there's absolutely no benefit in converting a 16-bit file to 24-bit. all it does is add 8 bits of nothing.
Thats what I thought too... but in a simple test, the audio bounced to 16 sounded slightly smaller and more compressed than the same audio, same 2bus plugs on the bounce, bounced to 24...

I had my back turned and told him to play a random clip and then the other... so I didn't have a clue which one was which... but it did sound like the 24 clip had more depth to it...
__________________
When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffTD View Post
I don't understand lesbians. I mean I understand lesbians, but I don't understand why virtually every dude is into them. I don't like watching videos of cheeseburgers eat each other - on their own, they're delicious, but once they start eating each other, neither is useful to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahjteam View Post
...its fucking HARD to do as simple stuff as he does and still make it groove like a moose.
AudioPhile777 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 03:29 AM   #4 (permalink)
Tym_ex
Tymon
 
Tym_ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 274
I think that's because even when you record your stuff @ 16 bits, your DAW and plugins use a minimum of 32 bits for all calculations to have more headroom. So in the end it does use the extra 8 bits for all plugin calculations and the summing process. Obviously, the difference will be much smaller then using 24 bit recording in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Tym_ex is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 04:27 AM   #5 (permalink)
AudioPhile777
Mathew Cohen
 
AudioPhile777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chatsworthingtonshire, CA, USA
Posts: 3,710
That was my friend's argument... the computer runs at 32 bit... the audio is 16bit... going up to 24 or even 32 bit to master then bounce back down to 24....

either way... is there any point to doing that since you will end up back at 16 bit?

That is my question.
__________________
When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffTD View Post
I don't understand lesbians. I mean I understand lesbians, but I don't understand why virtually every dude is into them. I don't like watching videos of cheeseburgers eat each other - on their own, they're delicious, but once they start eating each other, neither is useful to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahjteam View Post
...its fucking HARD to do as simple stuff as he does and still make it groove like a moose.
AudioPhile777 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 06:02 AM   #6 (permalink)
::XeS::
Senior Member
 
::XeS::'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 4,547
There is a reason because Andy and Fredman record their stuff at 24/44 and bounce to 16/44
::XeS:: is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 06:26 AM   #7 (permalink)
AudioPhile777
Mathew Cohen
 
AudioPhile777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chatsworthingtonshire, CA, USA
Posts: 3,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ::XeS:: View Post
There is a reason because Andy and Fredman record their stuff at 24/44 and bounce to 16/44
You didn't understand what I said.

I'm asking if there is any point to record at 16/48, bounce to 24/48 to master, then bounce to 16/44 for disc.

I've already assumed that there is no benefit or point to doing that.
__________________
When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong-- or absolutely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffTD View Post
I don't understand lesbians. I mean I understand lesbians, but I don't understand why virtually every dude is into them. I don't like watching videos of cheeseburgers eat each other - on their own, they're delicious, but once they start eating each other, neither is useful to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahjteam View Post
...its fucking HARD to do as simple stuff as he does and still make it groove like a moose.
AudioPhile777 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 07:18 AM   #8 (permalink)
::XeS::
Senior Member
 
::XeS::'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 4,547
Yes I understood...I was only in funny phase
Anyway... No, there are no benefits.
::XeS:: is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 10:15 AM   #9 (permalink)
2012
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 413
There is NO benefit.

You're just adding 0's.

If you upsampled (i.e. 44.1 to 96k), there would be a difference, but not very significant, and the conversions will probably degrade the audio more than you would gain by upsampling.

Some people upsample the entire mix from 44.1 to 96 because some plugins sound better at higher sample rates.

P.S. Tell your friend to quit recording in 16-bit. It's 2007!
2012 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2007, 11:45 PM   #10 (permalink)
QV
Senior Member
 
QV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 448
If you convert before summing (all tracks) you're adding zero's which give you more headroom when you're actually summing, so all eq's and any digital changes have more headroom before they get rounded off and lost or approximated. Since these effects are cumulative there would be a difference in the final stereo track.
I agree it would make no diff if your're converting stereo file and just play it back with no manipulation.
QV is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2007, 03:47 AM   #11 (permalink)
Tym_ex
Tymon
 
Tym_ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 274
I don't think that's true, because your DAW will process the audio @ 32bit or higher anyways. So if you wouldn't convert all tracks to 24 bits but bounce your 16 bit project @ 24 bits the extra headroom will still be used... I think...
Tym_ex is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2007, 04:05 AM   #12 (permalink)
BassTard
Member
 
BassTard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hannover - Germany
Posts: 80
Going for the mathematical theory I would recommend to check with a bitmeter.
Record something using 16 bit and convert to 24 - play back in a track with no volume-changes and no plugs. Watch the output using a bitmeter... usually it should still indicate that you're working with 16 bit - just until you change something.

So for me there's no point in recording 16bit - I think every modern DAW uses a higher bit depth for mixing (as has been said before) - so you will have more headroom nevertheless.
If you want to make sure, convert all tracks to 32-float, that may spare CPU as well. Mix down to 32 and decrease depth afterwards using a good dither or Voxengo's R8brain.

I believe to whitness less transparency and discernibility in 16-bit recordings - you definitly loose overtones that may proove important in a mix.
BassTard is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2007, 08:58 AM   #13 (permalink)
QV
Senior Member
 
QV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tym_ex View Post
I don't think that's true, because your DAW will process the audio @ 32bit or higher anyways. So if you wouldn't convert all tracks to 24 bits but bounce your 16 bit project @ 24 bits the extra headroom will still be used... I think...
if this were true, then wouldn't the word length be irrelevant? By the same logic - If I understand your point correctly - if one recorded in 8 bit, it would still sound as good as 24 bit.
The daw may be at 32 but the audio wordlength will be at 16... 24 bit gives you extra headroom which will make a difference in summing.
QV is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2007, 09:43 AM   #14 (permalink)
Tym_ex
Tymon
 
Tym_ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by QV View Post
if this were true, then wouldn't the word length be irrelevant? By the same logic - If I understand your point correctly - if one recorded in 8 bit, it would still sound as good as 24 bit.
The daw may be at 32 but the audio wordlength will be at 16... 24 bit gives you extra headroom which will make a difference in summing.
Hmm no wrong conclusion. I'm not saying there's no point in using 24 bit recording, there is! I'm just stating that there IS a difference in bouncing a mixed 16 bit project @ 16 bit or 24 because of the higher internal bitrate your DAW uses.

A 16 bit recording will have 16 bits of information, it will always have those 16 bits and not more, your DAW can't magically guess the other 8 bits when converting to 24 bit. But, when you have an entire project of 16 bit files your DAW uses 32 bits or more to sum those tracks together so there will be a difference. That's all the topic starter was asking...

Anyways, there's obviously no good reason to record @ 16 bit in the year 2007, but that wasn't the question.
Tym_ex is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2007, 10:14 AM   #15 (permalink)
Jevil
Pro Evolution Fucker
 
Jevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Basque Country
Posts: 3,291
I can't notice any difference between 16/24/32. Should I go to check my ears? Last time I went to the doctor he told me my ears were great.

And talking about Khz, which is better, 44.1 or 48? Does it make any difference for a human ear? I was told that 48 is better for CPU performance.
Jevil is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2007, 07:11 PM   #16 (permalink)
fatalforce
Senior Member
 
fatalforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 465
If you record in 24 bit you need to add dither. Or else when you bounce, your truncating the bit rate (aka not good). When you could record at 16 bit, I prefer 24 bit because the quantizing error is less when you go from analog to digital.
fatalforce is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old September 28th, 2007, 07:28 PM   #17 (permalink)
Metaltastic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 19,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevil View Post
I can't notice any difference between 16/24/32. Should I go to check my ears? Last time I went to the doctor he told me my ears were great.

And talking about Khz, which is better, 44.1 or 48? Does it make any difference for a human ear? I was told that 48 is better for CPU performance.
Well the higher the sample rate, the higher the frequency that can be recorded. It's called the "Nyquist Theorem," and it denotes that the highest possible freq. that can be captured is half of the sample rate (so 22.05 kHz at 44.1 kHz SR, 24 kHz at 48 kHZ SR, etc.). When a freq. higher than that cutoff point (the "Nyquist") is sampled, it creates aliasing, a false sound at a lower freq. - but this isn't an issue, since every converter has a Low-Pass filter at the Nyquist.

As you can probably imagine, because we can't hear above 20kHz, a higher sample rate really doesn't make a difference. A higher bit depth, however, does, because it greatly increases the potential dynamic range (and thus headroom).

Raising either of them doesn't tax your CPU any more, but it does gobble up more HD space.
Metaltastic is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old September 29th, 2007, 01:12 AM   #18 (permalink)
fatalforce
Senior Member
 
fatalforce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaltastic View Post
\s you can probably imagine, because we can't hear above 20kHz, a higher sample rate really doesn't make a difference. A higher bit depth, however, does, because it greatly increases the potential dynamic range (and thus headroom).
This is true but in theory, an analog wave is continuous. When you convert that wave into digital it takes samples depending on the sample rate. The lower the sample rate the less your wave will truthfully turn out. Wouldn't you want your waveform to be more accurate by taking more samples in the A to D conversion?
fatalforce is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0
© Copyright 2000-2014 UltimateMetal.com | MetalAges Media