Gear / Technical Help > Ask The Tapers

16 bit still relevant?

(1/9) > >>

dgodwin:
So in the past couple weeks I put together an inexpensive rig to tape a few times a year, starting with a Guster show in January.  As neither of the last two laptops I've purchased have had a cd drive, and it seems in general that optical media has gone by the way side, is there any reason to release recordings in both 24bit and 16bit on archive.org?

Jhurlbs81:
This is an opinion question so I'm sure you will get different answers.  Me personally, I record in 24 bit to get the headroom, but only release 16 bit file sets.  If I was recording more dynamic music I would release in 24 bit, but for amplified PA stuff I personally don't think 24 bit is necessary.  One thing I will add is you can release in 24 bit and still allow derivatives for folks who want to stream mp3.  If I had to guess, I would say 90% of people will stream or download the MP3, the other 10% are probably split between people who still burn to CD and those who grab the 24 bit FLACs.

EmRR:
50% more data at 24 bit.   Agree that 24 bit release is probably overkill for most show recordings, given the nature of background noise masking.  It's certainly preferred for the recording side of things, leaving more room to change volume and do processing in a less destructive manner.  16 bit release after post processing is probably just about indistinguishable with rock shows, apples to apples.  24 bit for classical, jazz, or Pink Floyd '69-71 with time machine assistance, sure.   

From the recording studio side of things, I do everything at 88K2/24, but clients rarely ever listen to anything other than my 320kbps mp3 reference(!), which I make from the 88K2/24 master, down-converted to 44K1/16, then to mp3.  Most can't tell THAT difference with the playback equipment they own. 

mfrench:
A dear friend of mine is a music loving nut, especially live music.  But, his playback system, all flac file playback, is 1644. He doesn't feel a need to upgrade it, and always grabs my 1644 offerings, and not the high-res stuff.
I shrug, and send him 1644 links.

wforwumbo:
Yes there is reason.

16/44.1 is still the de facto standard. It’s a way to guarantee that everyone can hear the show.

24-bit is VERY useful for higher fidelity in general - to my ear the difference between the two is very stark. And releasing at the highest possible sample rate is useful for similar fidelity arguments. Another argument I’ll make for higher sample rates is for production/post: I use digital EQs, and the higher the sample rate they are provided the lower the filter error. For compression, EQ, and analog modeling of any sort plugins work SIGNIFICANTLY better at higher sample rates - the difference is night and day.

I can post two sound clips on Sunday: one with a signal using a filter at 24/96, and another at 16/48, with the same quantity of audio and with the same filter settings, and you can listen to see if there’s a difference for yourself. I’ll allow you to make the final decision for yourself after the fact.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page