Topic: Question about 24 bit

[SpareRibs]

Maybe it's a dumb question... I dunno 

If you record with a 24 bit recorder like the Marantz 6071 and a CD r holds 16 bits, then what be the point of recording 24 bit?

Maybe I have my information incorrect so sorry if I'm screwed up 

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

CDs are so last century.  24/96 DVDs is what its all about now.

[SpareRibs]

So I can now buy those 24/96 DVDs for storing the higher quality audio.
Are there 24/96 DVD portable players? Or do I have to hear the music in a DVD player?

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

you need a DVD AUDIO player (aka DVD-A). You can also burn 24/96 audio to DVD video, but I think most people use DVD-A.

There is one other common 24 bit format, Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD).

I found this article. There are plenty more:

http://stereos.about.com/od/homestereotechnologies/a/dvd_sacd.htm

It is possible to listen to 24bit via your computer if you have a nice 24 bit audio card. Thats what I'm doing for now.

[SpareRibs]

  Thanks for the info

I happen to be a Maxel cassette person so I do need a lot to learn!

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I think that many people use DVDV instead of DVDA because the DVDV format will support 24/96 and play in more players.  You can get DVD portable players and DVD in-dash head units pretty cheap these days.

I hear you on the Maxells.  I still have most of my cassettes because I still have cassette players in my cars.

[noahbickart]

you need a DVD AUDIO player (aka DVD-A). You can also burn 24/96 audio to DVD video, but I think most people use DVD-A.

There is one other common 24 bit format, Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD).

SACD is *not* a 24bit format. It is actually a 1 bit format. Search the archives.
-Noah

[Nick's Picks]

HRYK


fwiw..
there ain't nothing wrong w/16bit audio.  24bit is better, but only marginaly unless you have a high resolution stereo that can really "show you the goods" of 24bit audio.
If your a 16bit guy wanting to get into 24bit audio, you will find yourself buying all new gear, new playback gear, and then becoming very good w/an audio editor as you will still end up making normal CDs from your 24bit master.
its almost a lot of work.

[zowie]

The high end audio winds seem to be blowing toward 24 bits (while the low end consumer stuff increasingly trends toward data compression).  You'll have 24 bit masters for the future when (really "if", but I think probably) 24 bit becomes a wider standard.

Stereo and 3 track recording technology became widely available to the studios around 1956.  Stereo phono cartridges weren't intoduced until 1958 and took another year or two to penetrate the market, since they also required a whole new playback system.  Think of all we would have lost if Mercury and RCA said "Why should we record in 2 track [or shortly thereafter 3 track] if LPs are mono?" !

[George]

you need a DVD AUDIO player (aka DVD-A). You can also burn 24/96 audio to DVD video, but I think most people use DVD-A.

There is one other common 24 bit format, Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD).

SACD is *not* a 24bit format. It is actually a 1 bit format. Search the archives.
-Noah

Hmm, I always thought sacd was a 24 bit format, I never understood the whole 1 bit dsd thing to be honest.   

[wbrisette]

its almost a lot of work.

 


That's the quote of the year. Almost a lot of work... It's a ton of work. It's worse if you start running things like the R4 and want to start utilizing those 4 tracks, then you have the added trouble of not only making CDs and DVDs, but also having to work with a multi-track application.

Storage of the original data is also very important. Since the 24-bit recorders are all based on HD or flash media, you have the added trouble of storing all that data on multiple DVD discs.

24-bit really is the way to go, but as pointed out it's a lot of work.

Wayne

[WiFiJeff]

HRYK


fwiw..
there ain't nothing wrong w/16bit audio.  24bit is better, but only marginaly unless you have a high resolution stereo that can really "show you the goods" of 24bit audio.
If your a 16bit guy wanting to get into 24bit audio, you will find yourself buying all new gear, new playback gear, and then becoming very good w/an audio editor as you will still end up making normal CDs from your 24bit master.
its almost a lot of work.

It would be a lot of work, if we were getting paid for it.  Since it's a hobby, it's just a lot of fun.  Isn't that the way it goes?

Jeff

[Nick's Picks]

hence, almost.

[ghellquist]

Back to the question.

There really is no need to record at 24 bits, just laziness. I am one of those lazy guys. Always recording at 24 bits.

To keep it simple, number of bits spells the distance between the noise floor and full signal (where clipping begins). I do NOT like clipping in a digital signal, it sounds really bad. So I want a bit of headroom to handle those unexpected peaks. Personally I aim for about -12dB. Generally never change levels once set, unless I get red lights.

As one bit is equal to about 6dB I would have about 14 bits left if recording to 16 bit. This means about 6 x 14 db = 84dB of signal to noise. Quite usable but maybe a bit marginal.

Now, if I switch to "so-called" 24 bit recording, I might get something like 20 bits of real resolution. The last few bits are down in the noise on all AD converters accessable to me. Guess it is the same for you as well (S/N of 120dB, very few realworld converters go above that). So if I aim for max -12dB I still have 18 bits real resolution left.

In post production I do a bit of level setting, maybe a bit of EQ and maybe a bit of compression. Soft songs gets a bit of extra boost as well. The end result fits well into the 16 bit resolution of a CD. Had I recorded at 16bit from the beginning, noise would be quite noticable.

Anyway, my take on it.

Gunnar

[RebelRebel]

Gunnar, you are from PSW, yeah>>

thought I recognized your name...