Comments on: Best bit rate for digital recordings

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:32:49 +0000

always recording at 24 bits would be a good way to ‘future proof’ your work, because I’m sure it won’t be long before the standard 16/44.1 changes. If you were downloading music, wouldn’t you want it to be higher quality? The technology exists in both recording and playback, it just hasn’t been utilized much yet. Currently it is the norm to pay more than a cd for less than cd quality. If I was paying more for a cd I would want better quality, like 24 bit FLAC.
but yeah, most music ends up on ipods and listened to in noisy environments, where you can’t tell the difference.

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:22:08 +0000

man, at the studio there is never enough disk space, they have a lot, but we have to constantly swap stuff around, and have multiple backups so it fills up quick.

By: des

des — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:21:54 +0000

> isn’t the correct term “sample size”?

Ya, Jon’s right, “bit depth” is the accepted term, though “sample size” makes sense too.

> does big files mean more numbers to crunch right?

I’m not certain. But most modern DAWs work with 32- or 64-bit numbers internally, as does the CPU, regardless of the audio bit depth. So I’d expect that once the file is loaded into RAM, the bit depth is irrelevant.

Of course, 24-bit files are going to use 50% more RAM, so there’s that concern. But memory’s almost as much a commodity as disk storage today, so it’s probably moot.

By: kubton

kubton — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:08:40 +0000

This is the best case I have heard for 24bit. The usually argument has been it more so it should sound better which I never really bought. I have experimented a little and if there was a difference it was a subtle but I see how it could make a bigger difference on the right material. I still think the higher sample rates are pointless almost all the time.

I agree with storage being so cheap and plentiful these days it really is not much of a concern. The one possible complication I could see though is cpu. If the audio is being processed in any way won’t the higher bit rate tax the processor more. I guessing it does big files mean more numbers to crunch right? I know there are ways around this it just could be a possible annoyance.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:37:27 +0000

I believe the bit rate was referring to the mp3 part of the article. 16 bits and 24 bits is Bit Depth.

By: spinmeister

spinmeister — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:45:56 +0000

I like recording in 24bit, because it lets me get away with more during the recording process. :-)

However, I wouldn’t call that a “bit rate” – isn’t the correct term “sample size”?

By: des

des — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:51:19 +0000

Jon,

> then it is just a waste of disk space.

10 years ago, I would have agreed.

But storage is so freakin’ cheap now. I have a TB of *BACKUP* storage (to say nothing of my main storage) that cost me all of $400. Four hundred CANADIAN dollars, no less!

> where it says technique and talent is more important than any of this.

Ya, I read that for sure. But true as the statement is, in the current context, it’s not really relevant. Even if a player lacks talent, there’s no reason to limit his dynamic range.

Here’s another true statement: You can’t re-record the perfect take.

If there’s the slightest chance that I’ll ever need the dynamic range (and Tweak lists some possible reasons why I might,) then I’d say it’s a no-brainer to just use the extra bits. When storage is virtually unlimited, why take the risk?

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:21:06 +0000

If you are not taking advantage of the dynamic range of 24 Bits then it is just a waste of disk space. Loud sounds are going to sound the same at 16 or 24 bits.
Maybe you didn’t read to the bottom of the article where it says technique and talent is more important than any of this.
Lets never forget that.