Topic: 16 vs. 24 bit recording which do you prefer

[Phil Zone]

Thanks for the opinion.

[page]

24bit recording (for headroom safety and to use compressors/effects),
16bit distribution (no need for the additional size courtesy of the dynamic range).

[kindms]

I still do both for achiving but prefer the 24bit recording for the reasons above. For playback if i have a 24bit master that is what gets played (Server > touch).

It seems way more people grabbed the 16bit mule I just posted on etree vs. the 24bit tho.

[Gutbucket]

24bit recording (for headroom safety and to use compressors/effects),
16bit distribution (no need for the additional size courtesy of the dynamic range).

[dallman]

24bit recording (for headroom safety and to use compressors/effects),
16bit distribution (no need for the additional size courtesy of the dynamic range).

too

[TimSmith]

24 bit for recording, editing and archiving
16 bit for ipod and seeding

[Gutbucket]

I dunno. I appreciate the beauty of the solution, but to me using preemphasis just seems like more trouble than it's worth in a practical sense, considering the limited improvement in dynamic range and the necessary steps to do it and make sure everthing is working right and switched correctly on both ends.  It's not like we're talking about the limited range of analog tape or vinyl records where the payback is easier to justify.

But agreed that 24bit capability on much cheap gear is most valauble as an expected marketing feature rather than a significant technical specification.

[Gutbucket]

I can get 92dB for 17mW, 102dB for 60mW, 112dB for 200mW, 118dB for 300mW (to use TI parts as an example).

Interesting, thanks.

[SmokinJoe]

6 years ago when I had UA-5 > H120 I was happy with 16bit.  Except people made me feel like a second class citizen because of it.  I'm an engineer and I know I understand the electronics better than the people who were giving me shit.  99% of what makes a recording is in the analog before it actually hits that A/D chip, and I know that.  I still don't think I can hear the difference.  But I succumbed to peer pressure like a high school kid who feels embarrassed because he doesn't have the cool brand of jeans.

At this point all my gear is 24bit, so yes, I record 24bit (might as well) and most of it is 4 track or 24 track. Then it gets mixed and used as 16bit. The problem is the volume of data. Back when I was doing 16bit recording I could burn CD's with my flac files and put them in a safe place. Now I have so much data I can't (or don't) manage backups.   A multitrack show is 30gb, and I've got so many drives I can't keep track of what's on them.

[kirk97132]

I've got so many drives I can't keep track of what's on them.

I can feel your pain.....I have ten 1 & 2 TB drives so far.  Running 3 powered hubs on a small home network of three computers

[sacchini]

May be my more than 20 years of taping make me a newbie, anyway...
So I can't understand the question.
I record 24 bit, I do editing in 24/32 bit and I distribute16bit and 24 bit versions, both.
No one can hear the difference? May be, but if someone wants to do some more editing, sure 24 bit is to be prefered.
Power consumption is the problem in portable recording?
I don't know, I have a Roland R-26 that can run more than 8 hour with phantom powered mics on four 1.5V rechargeable battery.
Storage problems?
When I recorded on DAT tapes more than 20 years ago I need to carry at least 2 tapes for standard show and a bunch of tapes for festivals.
And once at home... Well, let's say that CPU and HD where not so cheap at the time!

[F.O.Bean]

I record in 24 bit and have done so since 2006. I upload my 16 bit stuff to etree if the band isn't on LMA? I UL BOTH 16 and 24 bit stuff to the LMA tho. 24 bit allows more headroom and a better signal to noise ratio

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

If and when I tape, I do so 24/48 (why not???)...

When I Seed, I do so at 16/44 (convenience for end-user)...

When I listen, I mostly do so via MP3 (crappy headphones at work and in the car) so it doesn't matter... 

Terry

[tim in jersey]

Back in the DAT days I used to watch levels like a hawk, trying to get every bit (no pun intended) of resolution I could without getting overs. 24 bit allows me to be more conservative with levels both open and  . I enjoy being more "in the moment" at shows without having to fret levels as much and that is worth the price of admission to the 24 bit realm alone for me. YMMV...

[noahbickart]

I record in 24 bit because my recording and playback gear can do it and it makes me feel better about myself as an audiophile. Hard Drive space is cheap.

However, given the specs and the actual dynamic range at rock concerts I readily acknowledge that there isn't any difference in sound.

I think those who claim to hear a difference should be backing up their claims with ABX results.

[Gutbucket]

I think the switch to recording 24bits may have been more significant in marking a change in taper behavior by encouraging more conservative level setting than marking a significantly meaningful change in gear capability.

If I get an extra bit or two of range out of a recorder with an ADC stage that can only manage 17 or 18 bits at best when writing 24bit files, I'm fine with that.  I don't worry much about having levels too low since I've I don't think I've ever had my gear's noisefloor end up higher than that of the recording environment. 

There is a local chamber music outfit who have performances in a small general purpose meeting hall here.  The room is rather mediocre to begin with, adding nothing positive accoustically, yet the overwheliming negative by far is the rattling AC vents in the drop-ceiling.  French doors to outside front and back patios are kept open before the program and at intermission, so the AC is always raging and rattling non-stop through the entire performance.

[H₂O]

Record and seed in highest res practical - I try and seed the recording as close to orig as possible - no edits unless a channel drops, etc - same bit depth and sampling rate

Only exception is DSD recordings where I seed at 24 88.2

I am a purest though

On LMA I have LMA create mp3's for causual listening

[cashandkerouac]

If and when I tape, I do so 24/48 (why not???)...

When I Seed, I do so at 16/44 (convenience for end-user)...

When I listen, I mostly do so via MP3 (crappy headphones at work and in the car) so it doesn't matter... 

Terry

similar for me, except for the fact that i record at 24/96.  i don't hear an usible difference between 24/96 and 24/48, but storage space is cheap so i figure it can't hurt to record at a higher resolution. 

[Stagger]

I record in 24 bit because my recording and playback gear can do it and it makes me feel better about myself as an audiophile. Hard Drive space is cheap.

However, given the specs and the actual dynamic range at rock concerts I readily acknowledge that there isn't any difference in sound.

I think those who claim to hear a difference should be backing up their claims with ABX results.

I think it depends on what you are recording and how advanced you want to get with your post processing. The wealth of plugins that are out there that, when properly used can make use of headroom beyond the originally recorded dynamic range is vast and ever expanding... All the software children of the Aphex Aural Exciter. You can restore compressed harmonics and even compressed dynamic range in general, if that is your wish. Even with large PA recording, you may have sections of dynamic range that are much greater than your average. If you are recording acoustic (or at least not fully reinforced) music, there can be a pretty clear difference.

Backing this up is harder than simply comparing a resampled 24 bit recording though. What we are really talking about is what happens at the point of capture. You would have to basically run a rig split at the AD point with everything the same save for the bit depth which, unfortunately, I don't have the ability to do. 

[DSatz]

Jon, due to a setup error on my part, I once made a 16-bit live classical recording without effective dither, and the results weren't what I expected from general theory. The noise floor of the venue included the building's ventilation system and Manhattan's omnipresent traffic rumble, so I thought that the recording would be "self dithering." The lowest levels I saw on the meters were ~54 dB below full scale, and since the theoretical requirement is only that the LSB be fully randomized, I thought that there would be no problem.

But when I got home I found that the recording had quite audible granular noise (quantization distortion) on the fadeouts of sustained piano tones and even on some quietly sung vocal passages. It turned out that those -54 dB noise floor levels were due in large part to uncorrected DC offset in the A/D converter. Once that was subtracted out, the lowest levels were more like -72 dBFS, in part because the preamp gain was set lower than would have been optimal.

The preamp + A/D was a Grace Lunatec V3, and I'd forgotten to engage the 16-bit dithering function. From this experience I learned always to double-check that setting before recording. Also, once I realized what had caused the falsely reassuring level readings, I sent the V3 back to Grace, who had worked out a method to get rid of DC offset since my preamp had been made. In general I consider small amounts of DC offset to be harmless, but not if they throw off your estimate of the noise floor. (I'd set my overall record levels based on what I thought was the noise floor when I was setting up, and since that reading was artificially raised by the DC offset, my levels were lower than they would otherwise have been, thus exacerbating the problems caused by the lack of effective dither.)

Obviously these were practical mishaps and mistakes that don't disprove the theory, but they do show how mistakes and mishaps can get the upper hand in the real world.

--best regards