audible difference between 16 bit and 24 bit? Don't think there is an audible difference... But my reason to use 24 bit .wav? I will always use 24 bit .wav, and it's not for the difference in sound... I will always render a high quality version of my tracks, because let's not forget alot of end users are most of the time always going to end up listening to the tracks in significantly less quality, whether they downloaded it from some free site that converted it poorly to a lesser file format, or whether they are listening to it on some compressed streaming service, or whether they just have some shitty speakers in their car or wherever, end users who aren't audiophiles and just wanna listen to some good grooves aren't going to try to find the best format, they just want a file that can play the sound... You would be surprised at how shitty quality sound files alot of people enjoy listening to music on, so they simply don't care about quality... Even me when I'm driving, my car has a busted up left speaker, but despite me having the ear to hear details, I know my car isn't the best place to hear these details, so I still enjoy listening to music on my shitty car speakers, which go even shittier since the speakers are busted AAAAAND I'm listening to even more shitty radio... and all of it adds up to one big shitty ass sound, but I'm still enjoying it... So now after my fuckn essay, why would I render my music to 24 bit .wav if no one gives a fuck in the end, even me? Well it's simple, at least the original final file, is a relatively decent format. At least the first original .wav, was a good .wav file that was rendered by me and sounds exactly the way I wanted it and is a as close to the original as possible. At least, somewhere out there, some fan who cares about the quality, has a quality render of my music, and yea, I could render a 16 bit or even render a 32 bit, but 24 bit .wav right now is a good middle ground and is a decent render for end users who have downloaded my track from the original source can get... It is my standard to present to people out there before it gets torn apart by peoples shitty systems and shitty ways of listening to a track. And I include myself in the category of people with shitty systems, cuz we all have one of those...
We want more bit depth to get less noise floor and then we add tape or cassette emulation plugins in our projects to get this vintage soul....Ridiculous?
on my mixes the difference is obvious! i havent played with the attached files yet but from my own stuff, 16 bit seems to remove lustre on nice monitors..
This is a nuclear bomb for analog tape purists. Equivalent 13 bits for high-end professional equipment, 6 to 9 bits for audiocassettes... gosh...
Dangerous, used to think that when I started 15 years ago. I recognize now that I was being biased by 24 beeing higher then 16 thus better. All I know is, that my preamp has a dynamic range of 100dB. And I use gates on most microphone recordings so I am activly making it even smaller. Last edited: Feb 26, 2020
You so beat me to that one.. I'm still digging that the loudness wars are essentially over thanks to the gatekeeping overloards of the streaming realm. -14 is probably the only good thing to come outa commercial streaming (yeah i'm spending all my streaming income on a new pair of socks.. yippeee) As for Sample rate, work in film its still 48/24.. deliver audio its still 44/16. It all ends up sqwashed like roadkill before it makes the consumer toss salad of the day.... end rant.
Listening to music on your smartphone or into your car (your because mine is a trash bin) can you really hear any difference between 16-bit or 24-bit? Can you?
this always makes me laugh too personally i like to create crystal clean tracks, i dont waste my time with VA unless its for something specific that needs to sound like that.
This is a very interesting and polemic topic that would deserve a thread itself. One thing are "real" pleasant effects of analog equipment that most people like. Born in 1970s or in the 2000s. Another are "by-association" pleasant effects. Which are a pile of shit because it's just we are used to hear it in great past recordings. It's like people who miss the artifacts of analog theater cinema, the ones very visible in those countdowns down... are f*ing kidding me?
I agree with you,personnally I like to hear a little bit of noise.I don't know why I like this little bit of noise though....
i think people need to let go of the past and learn new ways/tools/etc. no point clinging on to sub-par technologies. i cant wait until there are virtual MP3 VSTs
Really? And that's the reason why you don't need 24bit unless a song has more than 96dB of 'dynamic range'. Since when does the bit resolution has anything to do with the frequency response, please? As long as the songs have more than 96dB DR, no doubt. I wouldn't call a song that makes use of 96dB hyper-compressed. TBH, I never heard of a Nyquist Rate. The Nyquist Freq on the other hand has nothing to do with the bit resolution. And the resolution of the first/upper 16bit is identical for both 16 and 24bit. Within 96dB seems is the keyword here. Yep, that would be a good reason to work with 24bit. Aswell as for songs that need more than 96dB DR.
