record at 24 bit, mixdown at 16 bit

The Keeper · 08-31-2002, 07:14 PM

if I were to record at 24 bit, then do the final mixdown at 16 bit, would I get a clearer or better sound than if i recorded at 16 bit and mixed down at 16 bit?

tavenger5 · 08-31-2002, 07:35 PM

simple answer, yes. It depends on the program, and the dithering.

lostdave · 08-31-2002, 07:37 PM

when you mixdown from 24-16 bit....all it really does is truncate the additional bits...

I have always been of the belief that you work in what you are going to finish in..
if I am going to adat or dat......16/48 or 24/48
if i am going to CD or MD then 16/44.1

I don't think I have every recorded @ 24/96(even though My gear is capable of it)

Dave

The Keeper · 09-01-2002, 08:40 AM

Gonna have to brush up on my dithering, haven't come accross that term before

tommy · 09-01-2002, 03:56 PM

you have more data to work with at 24 bit. It might sound better but it really depends on the software that does the conversion.

The Keeper · 09-02-2002, 06:26 AM

i have cubase vst and logic audio 4.7. either of these do th job?

mkharvey11 · 09-22-2002, 01:05 PM

All digital recording has better quality at the upper end of the dynamic range. With 16-bit recording, the lower volume sounds will be thinner and there is even a digital noise floor. At 24-bit, you can be more conservative with the levels allowing more dynamics in the tracking while preserving a full sound. By the time you get everything mixed the levels ARE at the upper end of the dynamic spectrum, with compression and all, so you are dithering down a higher levels signal, which will sound better.

So, YES it is better to record 24 and dither to 16 later.
Cubase and Logic do the job for dithering.
I use Digital Performer on a mac, but do my dithering with the Waves L1+ Maximizer pluggin.

I own a professional studio in New Orleans.
Nashville Ave Sound Recording

For more educational info on digital conversion and dither, check out Bob Katz mastering studio website. He's the digital god! www.digido1.com

The Keeper · 09-22-2002, 10:29 PM

thnx, mkharvey11 , i've come accross bob's site but never looked too much at it, will do now

AjA · 09-26-2002, 05:04 AM

Yes, mkharvey11 has got it about right. I use Logic 5 and Cubase SX, both have built in dithering. The Waves L1 and L2 are both very good as well. Recording at 24 bit does produce a better end result, because it retains more of the dynamics of each recorded instrument. Then when you "Master" your mix add the dithering to 16 bit.

letsmix · 10-02-2002, 04:29 AM

I agree with mkharvey11. In every case where I've started out at 24 bit and dithered down to 16, the result is better sounding than a pure 16 bit session. That UV22 process certainly sounds like it's squeezing more bits into the final product, as well. Check into it, especially if you have very dynamic tracks with quiet sections.

Stimpf · 10-07-2002, 12:39 PM

I agree as well!
The higher the biterare is, the lower is the digitale noise! You can even master at 24 and dither afterwards.

The Keeper · 10-07-2002, 08:29 PM

if everyone agrees this much, you must be right

theainges · 10-30-2002, 08:02 AM

It's funny how dithering, in theory, should lessen the sound quality because it is removing parts to reduce the bit rate. The ears don't lie, though, 24 bit reduced to 16 bit does sound better than straight out 16 bit.

It's a bit like comparing the warmness of analogue and digital recordings - all that really matters is how we hear the end result, the theory about which should sound better is uselessl to the person listening and making up their own mind. Sounds like the old "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it..." question!