Nopemsnickybee wrote:My usb interface essentially means I record 96k/16bit, but I could technically mix and track virtual instruments in 24bit...
I could also produce an initial 24bit master I suppose.
Is it worth it?
Hence my short answer earlier. Forget 24 bits, regardless of the facts, it's only useful if you can actually hear a difference. If you can, you'll be the first person I've ever come across who can. Many people do indeed say that they can hear a difference, but saying it and actually being able to do it are two different things. Try mastering the same song to 16 bit and 24 bit, then posting both versions here. Let's see who can tell the difference.botface wrote:This is something i can't get clear in my own mind............
16 bits gives you a theoretical dynamic range of 96dB. 24 bit gives you 144dB. However, since you can't go above 0dBfs without causing distortion, the ranges are actually 0 to -96dBfs and 0 to -144dBfs respectively. In other words 24 bit allows you to record "quieter" signals before they get lost in the background noise. But, I doubt that most home studios have a noise floor better than -60dB (even that's pretty good) so even 16 bit looks more than good enough. Having said that I've heard that if you are using a lot of VST's and mixing lots of tracks there's some advantage to using 24 bit as it gives a big "safety net" for rounding errors, and hence noise, that the processing might introduce. Does anyone have any definitive answer?
Those are good articlesVibrant Audio wrote:It's really not a huge deal...just read the tweakheadz article I referenced above (and other articles like this one). And make up your mind from there.
Record stores are cool. There aren't enough! (here in the UK). And you're probably not in the UKcarllackey wrote:i own record stores
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 17 guests