Happy tracking @ 16 bits? WTF?

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
KennyLusk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Ramah, New Mexico

Happy tracking @ 16 bits? WTF?

Post by KennyLusk » Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:10 pm

After tracking @ 24 bits for 9 years (?) using BLA ADAC (4 years) I've gone back to tracking @ 16 bits using my ZED14's internal ADAC for I/O...and I'm happy with it. I mean, it literally sounds good to me and I'm enjoying it. It sounds "analog-ish" to me.

My music is rather simple; AC guitars, vocals, electric guitars (meaning mic's on amps), flutes, effects percussion, etc. No interface...just straight from the ZED board direct to my DAW via USB, tracking with Sonar. Tracking into 24 bit files using 24 bit plugs when I use plugs. 44.1kHz.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not starting a discussion of which is "better". That would be ridiculous of course and I'm not asserting that in any way, shape, or form. But WTF?

Any thoughts on this?
"The mushroom states its own position very clearly. It says, "I require the nervous system of a mammal. Do you have one handy?" Terrence McKenna

User avatar
Snarl 12/8
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3510
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: Right Cheer
Contact:

Post by Snarl 12/8 » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:31 pm

Less is more?

I've always believed that some 16 bit converters have got to be better than some 24 bit converters. And, of course, better is entirely subjective.
Carl Keil

Almost forgot: Please steal my drum tracks. and more.

jhharvest
steve albini likes it
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:58 pm
Location: Seoul

Post by jhharvest » Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:06 pm

Imo the only difference is that with 16-bit you need to track "hotter" than with 24-bit to have a useable dynamic range in mixing. That bit less of headroom means you'll be more likely to clip during tracking.

Tracking close to 0 dBFS with 24-bit is fairly pointless. Unless the track contains huge dynamics and you amplify it by 60 dB during the quiet parts you'll never hear those last bits. So might as well leave the extra bits as a safety buffer.

However this said when selecting 16-bit vs. 24-bit on the same converter & pre combination. You've changed both so that doesn't really apply straight. Maybe you just prefer the sound of the Zed?

User avatar
farview
tinnitus
Posts: 1204
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: St. Charles (chicago) IL
Contact:

Post by farview » Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:06 am

Another thing that could be happening is that you like the setup you are using now, which makes you feel good about what you are doing. How you feel about something will affect the way you think it sounds.

That's not to say that it doesn't sound stunning. 16 bit vs. 24 bit isn't going to be the deciding factor as to whether or not you can get a great sounding recording. It's just another very small detail along the way.

KennyLusk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Ramah, New Mexico

Post by KennyLusk » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:24 am

Thanks for your responses guys.

I could just be over-analyzing the whole thing. Carl has a valid point I feel, in that the converters on the ZED are just simply pretty solid to my ears. Even compared to a box as nice as the new USBPre 2 from Sound Devices. Nice box, excellent ADAC, it just didn't work out for me (I won't go into that). And some people have stated they prefer using ADAT converters from their 90's boxes in lieu of low-end interfaces with cheap ADAC and cheaply built analog stages.

jhharvest indicates I might be tracking hotter out of necessity after losing some headroom and he's right. At 24 bits it was ok to come into my DAW at -18 dBFS. If was over that, fine, but come mixing time not much was going to be over -18 as far as individual tracks go. I've had to change the way I mic my amps though and back the mic's away from the cones by about 12 inches.

I've given up a few bits, big deal, right? This biggest difference I've noticed has just been a tighter focus on my tracks...not so much room information in the capture. ER's, ambient reflections and the like, just aren't making it into the capture. And I like the way it sounds. If I want those things back in my recordings all I have to do is add room mic's.

So maybe I'm over-analyzing something that doesn't even need consideration. Like so many people around here say "just fn press Record" and go with it.
"The mushroom states its own position very clearly. It says, "I require the nervous system of a mammal. Do you have one handy?" Terrence McKenna

The Scum
moves faders with mind
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 11:26 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Post by The Scum » Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:13 pm

I've got a few ideas to add:

16 bits is reasonable for a storage & playback medium. We've been listening to CDs for years, and a well recorded CD can sound great.

Some of the things that plagued early digital systems have been figured out and addressed by now - Nyquist filtering, good clocking, oversampling, etc. So today's 16 bits may in fact be more fundamentally solid than older systems.

One of the places where 16-bit sampling starts to fall down is in bit-headroom for processing. On a 16-bit sampler (or early DAW), it only took a few edit operations before the digital crust began to build up. Once you get into any modern host-based DAW, the 16-bit integer samples get converted into 32 bit floating-point values, and any processing applied is done as 32 (or now 64) bit operations. There's a lot more leeway in the math before you begin to do audible damage. The input may be the same, but the infrastructure is better. Some better sounding math techniques are more common these days, too.

It may not be a question of whether 24 is better than 16, but rather: is 16 good enough?
"What fer?"
"Cat fur, to make kitten britches."

KennyLusk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Ramah, New Mexico

Post by KennyLusk » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 am

Faster hw processing, better a/d conversion (and d/a), enhanced host app competency, etc. It all adds up to better sound for sure.

Could I get away with tracking at 16 bits in a pro studio? LOL, I'd rather not. It's working out for me at home though.

And you're right (at least IMO), that 16 bits now sounds better to my ears than it did back in say 1998.
"The mushroom states its own position very clearly. It says, "I require the nervous system of a mammal. Do you have one handy?" Terrence McKenna

User avatar
tonewoods
buyin' a studio
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:48 pm
Location: Orcas Island, WA
Contact:

Post by tonewoods » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:17 am

I'm still tracking to analog, and then dumping to 16 bit DA38s...
Works for me... :wink:

User avatar
tonewoods
buyin' a studio
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:48 pm
Location: Orcas Island, WA
Contact:

Post by tonewoods » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:18 am

I'm still tracking to analog, and then dumping to 16 bit DA38s...
Works for me... :wink:

User avatar
Snarl 12/8
cryogenically thawing
Posts: 3510
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
Location: Right Cheer
Contact:

Post by Snarl 12/8 » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:54 pm

tonewoods wrote:I'm still tracking to analog, and then dumping to 16 bit DA38s...
Works for me... :wink:
tonewoods wrote:I'm still tracking to analog, and then dumping to 16 bit DA38s...
Works for me... :wink:
I see you like slapback echo as well. Whatever floats your boat. :wink:
Carl Keil

Almost forgot: Please steal my drum tracks. and more.

KennyLusk
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Ramah, New Mexico

Post by KennyLusk » Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:13 pm

tonewoods wrote:I'm still tracking to analog, and then dumping to 16 bit DA38s...
Works for me... :wink:
What form of analog are you tracking to and mixing on?
"The mushroom states its own position very clearly. It says, "I require the nervous system of a mammal. Do you have one handy?" Terrence McKenna

User avatar
lee
steve albini likes it
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 12:51 pm
Location: Detroit

Post by lee » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:32 pm

it literally sounds good to me and I'm enjoying it. It sounds "analog-ish" to me.
I know what you mean. I spent a lot of time recording with the VS880, 16 bit w/ data compression! It was a big pain to mix with (the artifacts were amazingly terrible!), but the end results were interesting. I think that I actually prefer them to what I'm currently doing in 24 bit, now that I think of it. Lo (or lower) -fi digital is cool, no doubt. Frankly, I think that it adds an interesting character to the music, if it's appropriate for what you're doing. Or at the very least, it's just different, and different will always be cool.
i've written the song that god has longed for. the lack of the song invoked him to create a universe where one man would discover inspiration in a place that god, himself, never thought to look.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests