I previously discussed the best bit rate for the MP3s you distribute. (Short answer: Probably 128KBps or 160KBps, but test your own music to be sure.)
There’s a more important bitrate for most home recordists, however: The number of bits you use to record raw tracks. In all likelihood, your recording system gives you two choices, 16-bit and 24-bit. So which should you use?
Tweak has the most accessible discussion of the subject I’ve read. Short answer: Record everything you do at 24-bit. The article spells out a few good reasons, but here’s the meat of it:
You can record at lower levels, with more headroom. This ensures that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, your instruments will sound clearer, and the vocals may sound “cleaner”, the song will mix better and there will be less noise.
(The article also touches on the optimal sample rate, and while I agree with the conclusion, it’s for different reasons. For more details, see the discussion of the myth that higher sample rates yield more accurate recordings.)
Tags: MP3-compression, samplerate
8 comments
Trackback URI Comments feed for this article
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.
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?
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”?
I believe the bit rate was referring to the mp3 part of the article. 16 bits and 24 bits is Bit Depth.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.