Topic: 24bit ..... or 16bit...whats your experience?

[Nick's Picks]

i've told my stories w/these two formats over and over here.
my bottom line, 24/44.1 is absolutely perfect.  All the benefits of 24bit, plus the ease of dither for redbook.

high sample rates?
i've done 96k off an on since 2001, and i have very few recordings where I feel that it made a positive impact.
mostly, i am distracted by crowd noise FAR more in my high bit rate/sample rate recordings.

[scb]

i think the crowd noise thing is just a coincidence.  i haven't found my 24/96 recordings to have more crowd noise

[Brian Skalinder]

i haven't found my 24/96 recordings to have more crowd noise

I don't think it's a question of more crowd noise, but the higher resolution of 24-bit providing greater detail.  The greater detail in turn makes the crowd noise more lifelike, more real - easier to pick out individual voices, conversations, noises, etc. - and therefore more distracting.  But that's based only a very few 24-bit recordings I've heard.

[Nick's Picks]

you nailed it Brian.
Scott..you just record in nicer venues than I do.

[kindms]

i haven't found my 24/96 recordings to have more crowd noise

I don't think it's a question of more crowd noise, but the higher resolution of 24-bit providing greater detail.  The greater detail in turn makes the crowd noise more lifelike, more real - easier to pick out individual voices, conversations, noises, etc. - and therefore more distracting.  But that's based only a very few 24-bit recordings I've heard.

I would say that this is definitely true but there is no way that you can say the above and not also say that the recording has greater detail in general.

I think it comes down to any taping situation you just never know what your gonna get in the sense that the crowd might be a great 1 and would you be wishing you ran 24Bit ? Sure a killer recording in any bit depth gonna sound good but when the recording is great and 24 Bit watch out.

"These go to eleven"

[rustoleum]

i haven't found my 24/96 recordings to have more crowd noise

I don't think it's a question of more crowd noise, but the higher resolution of 24-bit providing greater detail.  The greater detail in turn makes the crowd noise more lifelike, more real - easier to pick out individual voices, conversations, noises, etc. - and therefore more distracting.  But that's based only a very few 24-bit recordings I've heard.

I agree with this... it also makes other annoyances like wind noise more defined and potenitally more distracting.. that said, I'll run pretty much exclusively at 24 bit/48Khz these days as the music has that greater detail, too.  When listening on my big playback system the sound is so much more lifelike and natural to my ears and I can always dither and resample for the car or office. 

[creekfreak]

I think when taping a PA the difference is really not that big...now if you are taping raw music..say like an orchestra in a nice hall, or a band with no PA, then the difference become more apparent. Just my 2 cents...if anything, when taping a crappy PA in your typical bar or music venue, the 24bit will just make it sound all the more crappy...just my 2 cents

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

Some interesting reads I found this morning:

http://stereophile.com/features/404metrics/index.html
http://www.stereophile.com/features/282/index.html
http://studio-central.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=10674&highlight=24bit+16bit

Very interesting questions raised, at least in my mind - if our mics only record up to 20kHz, what's the point of being abel to playback or record higher than 20???  How about your playback freq. range??? 

Terry

Edit:  added another link

[JasonSobel]

Very interesting questions raised, at least in my mind - if our mics only record up to 20kHz, what's the point of being abel to playback or record higher than 20???  How about your playback freq. range??? 

yes, it is very interesting.  a few different things going on here, 24 bit vs 16 bit, and then the whoel sampling frequency debate.

IMO, 24 bit is definitely worth it.  the added low level detail (in both the music and the ambiance) makes the recording much mroe realistic.  It just makes it that much easier to close my eyes and imagine that I'm back at the show.  Come on Nick, first you say that 24 bit isn't worth it, and 16/44.1 upsampled at playback to 24/96 sounds almost as good as real 24 bit.   then you change your mind think 24 bit really is the way to go.  and then you get the Oade mod PMD-660 and think 16 bit is all that.    I'm a strong believer in the advantages of 24 bit, regardless if you think it makes the background conversations stand out more.

now, what Terry was talking about with Frequency response.  there is more reason than just frequency repsonse to increase the sampling rate.  I've read (sorry, I'm at work and don't have time to look up articles to link to at this time), but I've read that the human ear can detect time differences that are smaller than 1/48000th of a second.  From that logic, a 96kHz recording will be able to more accurately represent when a note actually begins, while that exact point in time is missed somewhere between 2 samples from a 48kHz recording.  (I'm sure that I'm not describing it as clearly as I would like, perhaps someone else can chime in and help out as well).

So, does that sampling difference make an audible difference?  well, I've only done one non-scientific comparison of a 24/48 recording vs. 24/96 recording.  based on that comparison, I'd say the difference is subtle, but I was able to pick up a slightly more defined and clarity when listening on my grace 901 > grado rs-2 headphones.  but very subtle.  subtle enough that I'm more than happy to record at 24/48 until 8gig CF cards are cheap enough.

but do I think 24 bit is worth it?  absolutely.  huge improvement over straight 16 bit recordings.

[scb]

Scott..you just record in nicer venues than I do.

oh i defintiely tape in some shitholes

[kindms]

if portable DSD becomes a reality im all for it. At this point ill be happy if i can leave the lappy at home

[creekfreak]

if portable DSD becomes a reality im all for it. At this point ill be happy if i can leave the lappy at home

QFT

[Nick's Picks]

I know Jason...i'm fickle.

I think 24bit is worth it.  but 16bit doesnt suck at all.
high sample rates...not worth it, IMO. 

its funny...
here is a band...whos cabinets are being "recorded" with sure SM57s > compressed to all hell > pumped through mostly crappy PA systems in MONO, more or less...and here we are recording the room with $2k+ worth of stereo gear.
and ...thinking its "all that"

[nickgregory]

The one thing I think some folks miss in this type of discussion is the effect of 24 bits being captured of not just the PA, but the entire environment.  True it equals more detail on conversations as stated earlier, but the other thing it does is more accurately capture the environment you were listening in...I think some of this is attributable to the "space effect" that I know I hear on 24 bit tapes.  In addition to the resolution of the recording I am hearing the environment it is in...which can be both a bad thing and an amazing thing...based on the surroundings.

[Ed.]

I know Jason...i'm fickle.

I think 24bit is worth it. but 16bit doesnt suck at all.
high sample rates...not worth it, IMO.

its funny...
here is a band...whos cabinets are being "recorded" with sure SM57s > compressed to all hell > pumped through mostly crappy PA systems in MONO, more or less...and here we are recording the room with $2k+ worth of stereo gear.
and ...thinking its "all that"

i've thought about that too, with some local bands i record - my rig costs more than the instruments of the entire band.

but it is still about the environment too.  i'm thinkign i'll probably do 24/96 only if i'm shooting video or if the venue is top notch.  i'll still probably run 24bit once i can tho, especially if i have the space on the cf card.