This question I think probably is too simple, but here goes...

Are there really noticeable advantages to recording audio tracks in 24 bit and then in the final mix dithering down to 16 bit?

I've been recording audio in 16 bit and it's been sounding great. Even though I have plenty of disk space and RAM I'm trying to get some opinions as to whether I really should be recording the audio tracks in 24 bit.

yes when recording, use 24 bit. you will often not use every available bit at the loudest moment. when youuse every available bit at the loudest moment in a tune 16 bit 44.1 can accurately reproduce everything a human can hear upto 96 deciibels.

Hi
At SAE the teaching was the higher you start the better it will compress down.
I still start @ 4800Hz and 24 bit , I have run @ 196 / 64 the audio files are huge
Regards
Rob

Rob.Art

Hi
At SAE the teaching was the higher you start the better it will compress down.
I still start @ 4800Hz and 24 bit , I have run @ 196 / 64 the audio files are huge
Regards
Rob

Uh ...

lawajava

This question I think probably is too simple, but here goes...

Are there really noticeable advantages to recording audio tracks in 24 bit and then in the final mix dithering down to 16 bit?

I've been recording audio in 16 bit and it's been sounding great. Even though I have plenty of disk space and RAM I'm trying to get some opinions as to whether I really should be recording the audio tracks in 24 bit.

Here's how I approach it ...

I try to keep my system recording and rendering at the same bit depth through the entire project. So ...... if you use any FX that utilize 32bit processing, in theory, it would be best to record to a 32bit file. Most FX do process in 32bit or higher.

All of my projects are 96kHz/32bits. If I am going to burn the project to CD, I will export it to 44.1kHz/16Bit with dithering. If I am going to create an MP3, I export it at the full project setting without dither. Then I load the .wav in to Sound Forge and create an MP3 from that file. You do not have to reduce bit depth when creating an MP3 so dithering and converting to 16bit is not necessary. To make the best possible sounding MP3, I always use the original, undithered 96kHz/32bit .wav file.

Another way to look at it is, you never really hear what you record in the digital domain. You hear a facsimile of it ... or, a representation. So, the higher the quality of that representation, the more detail you will get of the signal you recorded.

The other thing to remember is, especially for guitar players and singers, the higher your sample rate, the lower your latency will be.

The other thing that effects all of this is the quality of the A/D D/A converters in your sound card. I while back I did a test using different sample rates at 24bits. I discovered that bass frequencies sounded better on my Fast Track Ultra with the project set to 96kHz as apposed to 44.1kHz. And I also discovered that the high end sounded better when the project was set to 44.1kHz as apposed to 96kHz. I used test tones I created in Sound Forge to do the tests. The differences were minimal, so I stuck with 96kHz because of the lower latency.

If you are recording at 16bits, you are introducing dithering before you even export, especially if you are using ASIO drivers ... they are 24bit. And if it sounds good to you, it just goes to show how minimal all of this really is ... I have lots of recordings I did with a piece of crap onboard sound card embedded on my motherboard and when I throw them on a CD mixed with new stuff I did at 96/32, I can't hear a difference. Especially cruising down the road in the car. So yeah, 24 bit will definitely sound better than 16bit but 32bit is the best choice if your system can handle it ...

Yes, record at 24 bits.  Even the average, prosumer convertors that we all know and love outspeck the theortical 96 dB range of 16 bit audio.  Unless you prefer a higher noise floor, then use 16 bit.

@

Bub, I hadn't even contemplated 32 bits. Thanks all for the input. I guess I'll flip that bit and try the higher spec!

Don't bother.

There are no 32 bit recording interfaces available.

24 bit is more than sufficient

I'll posit a contrary view for balance, and suggest that the answer is "no"; there is normally no discernible difference between a file recorded at 24 bits versus a file recorded at 16 bits.

The benefits of longer wordlengths apply to the subsequent mixing and editing of those files, not so much to recording them initially. Of course, as soon as you bring a 16-bit file into a 32-bit project SONAR's going to automatically tack on some zeroes and from then on you're working with 32-bit files internally. But a well-recorded 16-bit clip will sound so close to a 24-bit clip that it's highly unlikely you'd be able to distinguish them in a blind A/B test.

Keep in mind that - contrary to intuition - bit depth does not dictate how the audio sounds, only how big a difference there can be between quiet and loud sounds.

I can tell a difference in 48k over 44.1k in listening to vocal details.

Or I was able to some years back but always went with 24bits for headroom and mixing. You can mix low and bring things up with digital with no problems, where in analog you had to get every track pretty hot.

You start a project at a certain level and when everything is added it will be too hot unless you start low enough, kind of thinking.

A lot of people want to work at higher sample rates like 88.2 and 96 and above but there is a substantial cost in performance that you don't have with 48k.