Topic: Analog to 24bit question

[szumsteg]

How much am I going to gain taking old analog tapes, master caseettes or 1st gens whatnot, and putting them to 24bit vs 16bit. Is an analog tape going to suddenly get better at 24bits, or is it just the fact its a better replication of the analog tape. I don't notice that when I convert an analog tape to 16 bits it sounds worse than if I just play it through the tape deck into my amplifier than the CD I make. It seems to sound exactly the same. It would just seem to me that the same would hold if I took the master tape and played it through my amp direct vs DVD audio, it cant get better, all it can do in the end if all goes well is sound exaclty the same,correct?

I totally understand that its probably better to have more 0's and 1's digitally to replicate my analog master, but what does that mean to the ears. Or is the classic example of it feels better to have it in the largest size file possible...Is everyone going to do the same thing all over again when we get to the next level of bit recording.

Granted for future audio recordings, 24bit is the way to go, because the machine is capturing more to start with, but old recordings on analog tape, I guess the real question is what bit rate were they being captured at...

[JasonSobel]

it's not going to sound better than the original tape.
24 bits is good because, as you say, "its a better replication of the analog tape."
However, I think the real benefit for 24 bit is if you do any processing on your computer after you've transferred.  maybe some slight hiss reduction, or something along those lines.  I think you'll find that you have much better results starting with a 24 bit capture rather than a 16 bit capture.

[boojum]

16 bit gives you about a 100 dB range; 24 gives you about 145 - 150 dB range.  24 bit allows more manipulation with less loss for mastering.  Better sounding?  Is Ford better than Chevy? 

[Petrus]

Old analog tapes propably have the noise floor at about -55 to -60 dB levels below peaks, even with 16 bits the lowest 30 dB at least will be hiss only. Using 24 bits will not give you any benefits, only almost 80 dB of hiss...

[boojum]

Old analog tapes propably have the noise floor at about -55 to -60 dB levels below peaks, even with 16 bits the lowest 30 dB at least will be hiss only. Using 24 bits will not give you any benefits, only almost 80 dB of hiss...

Are you saying that by allowing a greater dynamic range the hiss level will be higher?  How does that happen?

[Petrus]

No. Just that with 24 and 16 bit systems you will have exactly the same usable signal (top part of the dynamic range) and the rest is just noise.

Analog tape has something like 50 to 70 dB of DR (depending on Dolby sytems et.)
16 bit digital has over 90 dB (96 dB in theory)
24 bit digital has about 115 db at best (144 dB in theory)

Using 24 bits does not help, does not hurt.

[F.O.Bean]

if you do record in 16-bits, make sure your DAW's temp file is done at 24-bit processing tho.

[willndmb]

Is Ford better than Chevy? 

my grandfather says yes 

[Tim]

why wouldn't you want the best possible representation of the analog tape?

[Petrus]

Because in this case 24 bits is not any better than 16 bits. 24 bits adds nothing to the quality, bacause there is nothing on the analog tape that 16 bit system can not catch, hold and reproduce. Like driving a car alone and always pulling a trailer just because car (16 bits) and trailer (8 bits more) is "better" than having just a car... Or if your analog tape was a pint of milk, a gallon jar (16 bits) is plenty big enough for it, there is no point in getting a two gallon (24/96) or a four gallon (24/192) bottle for it.

But like I said, 24 bits only makes files larger, no hurt there with modern systems.

[dmccabe]

Because in this case 24 bits is not any better than 16 bits. 24 bits adds nothing to the quality, because there is nothing on the analog tape that 16 bit system can not catch, hold and reproduce.

We run a Dead project called MOTB. We transfer older analog recordings. We release every show in 2 versions (from the same analog transfer), one in 24-bit and one in 16-bit to burn to Cds. You can HEAR the difference. As mentioned, any post-mastering is one reason for 24-bit... but even WITHOUT any post transfer changes, you can still hear the difference between a 24-bit transfer and a 16-bit transfer -- using the same master recording and the same A/D but at different sample rates. Why? Frequency response detail. Well, some people can't hear it -- but that is another discussion.

I can write pages here on many topics that effect the quality of sound -- especially when taking an old master cassette to digital.

But let's look at how major studios release CDs. How many older analog commercial albums have been remastered to CD in the last 10 years. Did they go to 24-bit from the master analog... or did they just go directly to 16-bit? duh! If there is no audible difference, why would they ALL go to 24-bit...

Petrus' statement is related to dynamic range, not fidelity... by trying to associate dynamic range to the "quality" of recording (frequency response) is misunderstanding what human ear's hear. You can't change the dynamic range of an original analog cassette, but you can change the amount of frequency response. The higher, the more natural sounding.

The frequency response of audio CD is sufficiently wide to cover the entire audible range, which roughly extends from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Analog audio is unrestricted in its possible frequency response, but the limitations of the particular analog format will provide a cap. High-quality metal-particle cassettes may have a response extending up to 14 kHz at full (0 dB) recording level.

Why do early 16-bit digital converters sound different than today's digital converters at 16-bit? So all 16-bit digital is not the same? If they are the same bit rate, how can they sound different? How about 24-bit?

When I record to 1-bit DSD... is that lower quality or higher "quality" than 16-bit PCM? Does the same analog transfer "sound" different going to 1-bit DSD than 24/96 PCM?

Don't confuse bits with sound quality... to help determine what bit rate to use when converting an older analog cassette is to check the frequency response of the microphones used in the recording. But on that same note, frequency response does not guarantee a specific fidelity either.

[boojum]

How a copy can sound better than the original eludes me.  How can that be?

[Gutbucket]

'Sound better' could mean EQ, noise reduction, dynamics or other 'mastering' work, or something more subtle - maybe sweetened through a nice sounding preamp or other playback equipment during the transfer.  That doesn't make it more 'accurate' to the original tape though.

[F.O.Bean]

I would at least record in 24/44 for any processing that may need done, but thats just me and the purist in me

[boojum]

'Sound better' could mean EQ, noise reduction, dynamics or other 'mastering' work, or something more subtle - maybe sweetened through a nice sounding preamp or other playback equipment during the transfer.  That doesn't make it more 'accurate' to the original tape though.

This is true.  But the part that got my interest is this: " . . . but even WITHOUT any post transfer changes, you can still hear the difference between a 24-bit transfer and a 16-bit transfer --"