Noah Mintz wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 17:17 |
Bob Boyd wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 16:06 |
Bit depth does matter but I'll take a well done 16 bit DAT over hi res 24 bit hash any day.
|
agreed but we have to assume that the files i was given today were good in their 24 bit format as well since I could tell from the PT record files that they were 24bit.
i should be more specific with my questions:
1. are 24bit source files really better than 16 bit in most cases? (or are they almost the same?)
If so, how? Again, forget about the numbers. Has anyone compared the two with their ears? Normally I get either 24bit or 16bit. I don't get the choice. If I do get the choice I go straight to 24 bit...no brainer. But has anyone had the choice and chosen the 16bit over the 24bit? When we think about it and think of the math we want to choose 24 bit but if we listen, I wonder what the difference is? The only comparison I have is my mastered files and the CD I make. Sometimes I like the CD better....
2. Do you question a producer/mixer of an extremely high profile? (think big here)
Who am I to question this guy on this matter? I'm grateful I've gotten the job at all. If he gives me the 16bit audio disc to work with and tells me to use it (remember I did question why he didn't give me the 24bit) do I try to explain to him why 24bit is better? I assume he knows, he's not that old and his experience is among the best and biggest in the business. He did record it at 24bit.
Even if I did question him, how can I back it up? I don't know if 24bit mixes sound better than 16. I question if I'm too caught up in the numbers?
Noah
|
The fact that he converted the 48k files to 44.1k would make a difference if he didn't use a really good SRC. I'm sure you've tested various programs and found that some do a better job than others so you have that experience to back you up.
Secondly, I don't know the numbers but I've done some testing for my own education and mastered the same song with the same settings, but one file 16 bit and the other 24 and definitely liked the one that came from 24 bits better (after dithering to 16b). I did my first test a few years ago and tried it again recently, just to make sure my observations were still valid.
Plus if you are using any digital gear, it will probably be upsampling so wouldn't you be double dithering for no good reason at some point?
I do agree with Bob Boyd that well recorded mixes at 16/44.1 sound better than ones not done so well but using higher bit and sample rates but the issue here is that the mixer is potentially losing a small percentage of sound by giving you a CD and not leaving bit and SRC to the guys that are supposed to be doing it best, the ME.
I did agree with you in a previous post that it can be tricky to question a guy with credits but it's your job to get the best sound for him!
Just tell him that his files will sound better being processed at 24 bits and that you have a killer SRC program and POW-r dither (or whatever) to do the final dither.
On the other hand, maybe its the type of bandwidth limited distorted material where these issues won't be so noticeable in which case, carry on
!