saving/rendering/recording a 16bit source file in 24bit - any different than 16bit?

[mtsepana]

Hi,

Can someone please help I am confussed about bit depth 16 and 24bit files.

Scenario 1 - If I have loaded a 16bit sample into a sampler and trigering it via Midi, is there any difference if I render the track to a 16bit/44.1k file or a 24bit/96k file (besides file size)?

Scenario 2 - If I am triggering a synth (vsti) via midi I can render to a 8, 16 or 24bit wav file according to the render format options in my sequencer. Is the quality of the rendered file dependant of my sound card (e.g 16bit capable sound card or 24bit capale sound card).

Scenario 3 - Ripping a CD to wave in a wave editor the source cd material is 16bit/44.1k what difference does it make if I save the file in 24bit or 16bit (besides the size of the file, I know 24bit files will be bigger than 16 if it's from the same source)

[mindundermatter]

Scenario 1 - If I have loaded a 16bit sample into a sampler and trigering it via Midi, is there any difference if I render the track to a 16bit/44.1k file or a 24bit/96k file (besides file size)?

This would be upsampling and won't give you any benefit unless the rest of your audio files in the session are 24bit/96kHz as well. There are plenty of arguments for (and against) the benefits of using higher bit depths and sampling rates.

Scenario 2 - If I am triggering a synth (vsti) via midi I can render to a 8, 16 or 24bit wav file according to the render format options in my sequencer. Is the quality of the rendered file dependant of my sound card (e.g 16bit capable sound card or 24bit capale sound card).

Sort of. It's more dependent on the format you are using (24 bit vs. 16 bit; 44.1kHz vs. 96kHz).

Scenario 3 - Ripping a CD to wave in a wave editor the source cd material is 16bit/44.1k what difference does it make if I save the file in 24bit or 16bit (besides the size of the file, I know 24bit files will be bigger than 16 if it's from the same source)
Reply With Quote

None. Again, this would be upsampling.

[mtsepana]

This would be upsampling and won't give you any benefit unless the rest of your audio files in the session are 24bit/96kHz as well.

In analogue recording there is whats called "a second generation recording", am I correct to say that making a 16bit render/recording from a 16bit source would produce a lower quality file than the original, in other words it is not an exact (bit by bit) copy of the file. If this is true wouldn't a 24bit render be a closer representation of the original file?



Sort of. It's more dependent on the format you are using (24 bit vs. 16 bit; 44.1kHz vs. 96kHz).

In other words better sound card better renders???????


Thanks for explaning scenario 3 to me. I used to think for mastering purposes if a mixdown audio disk was supplied in 16/44.1 upsampling the file to 24bit would help when it comes to the processing (compression, EQ and Limiting).

[mindundermatter]

If this is true wouldn't a 24bit render be a closer representation of the original file?

If it is already at 16bit, then no. You wouldn't gain anything by re-recording it at 24bit except noise (I think, anyway).

In other words better sound card better renders???????

Yeah. A better soundcard will be more accurate.

[Odla]

[Yeah. A better soundcard will be more accurate.[/QUOTE]


I really wonder if this is true, I always thought rendering is purely a program algorithm, totally independent of the soundcard...
I could be wrong here, maybe somebody else knows more about this

Aldo

[garageband]

If it is already at 16bit, then no. You wouldn't gain anything by re-recording it at 24bit except noise (I think, anyway).

. Sounds right. As far your personal convenience, make yourself happy.

[whomper]

Originally Posted by mtsepana

This would be upsampling and won't give you any benefit unless the rest of your audio files in the session are 24bit/96kHz as well.

In analogue recording there is whats called "a second generation recording", am I correct to say that making a 16bit render/recording from a 16bit source would produce a lower quality file than the original, in other words it is not an exact (bit by bit) copy of the file. If this is true wouldn't a 24bit render be a closer representation of the original file?



Sort of. It's more dependent on the format you are using (24 bit vs. 16 bit; 44.1kHz vs. 96kHz).

In other words better sound card better renders???????


Thanks for explaning scenario 3 to me. I used to think for mastering purposes if a mixdown audio disk was supplied in 16/44.1 upsampling the file to 24bit would help when it comes to the processing (compression, EQ and Limiting).

not quite --
2nd generation analog would lose a lot more quality than upsampling

going from 16 to 24 requires upsampling

the loss in quality should be very minimal though
a lot less than if you went from 24 to 16

if you are going to do a lot of processing
and then go back to 16 bit when you are done then
you may do much better than just processign the original 16 bit fiel

[brandondrury]

It's my view that there are 3 people on Earth who have audio engineering skill with tolerances smaller than that of all this bit depth crap. I consider bit depth discussion to be the heroine of the home recording internet world. It's a additive all that ends up happening is you waste a big chunk of your life.....if it doesn't kill you.

I officially do not believe in a single government conspiracy after seeing what delusions the human can create to make Bit Depth Wars the most popular thread of all time here at RecordingReview.com. WE are our worst enemy.

Brandon

[garageband]

I t took my a while to dry out from that last episode.

[whomper]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

It's my view that there are 3 people on Earth who have audio engineering skill with tolerances smaller than that of all this bit depth crap. I consider bit depth discussion to be the heroine of the home recording internet world. It's a additive all that ends up happening is you waste a big chunk of your life.....if it doesn't kill you.

I officially do not believe in a single government conspiracy after seeing what delusions the human can create to make Bit Depth Wars the most popular thread of all time here at RecordingReview.com. WE are our worst enemy.

Brandon

absolutely right

however, if you dont obsess about it, technology can help

i think i see a lot of people who have problems with their music blame the gear they own. ever see anyone say i have a million dollar studio but i cant create krap cause i suck?

those who concentrate on the music, and have the skills to use newer techniques, can do better than they used to with their old hardware.

the truth is that 24bit is better than 16 but only if you concentrate on the music not pat your back about the hardware you just bought.