Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Masterer]

24 bit is for pussies. Just master the friggin' thing.


....and when he calls to tell you how great it sounds tell him you could have gotten it a little louder if it was 24 bit 'cause of the "increased dynamic range".

watch how fast you get the 24 bit files.

[carlsaff]

MT Groove wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 00:43

Lately I've been getting CD-Rs that were copied on a PC using Windows Media or iTunes and you can hear the "mp3" quality in them.

You can also see evidence of this on an analyzer, if you're doubting your ears (a cliff-like low-pass @~ 18khz).

This is easily a bigger problem these days than working from 44/16 files.

[Bob Boyd]

Masterer wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 02:59

....and when he calls to tell you how great it sounds tell him you could have gotten it a little louder if it was 24 bit 'cause of the "increased dynamic range". watch how fast you get the 24 bit files.

that's awesome  

[Jerry Tubb]

Bob Boyd wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 08:20

Masterer wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 02:59 ....and when he calls to tell you how great it sounds tell him you could have gotten it a little louder if it was 24 bit 'cause of the "increased dynamic range". watch how fast you get the 24 bit files. that's awesome

Then you may get 32-bit files with a request to make it even louder !

The engineers around here, esp our regular clients have gotten a lot hipper about what they bring to mastering: 24-bit files, not squashed, on a HDD, DVD-R, or upload to our server. Which we certainly prefer to audio CD-R.

Yesterday we had to tell a client not to bring the 128k files... yikes!

JT

[Noah Mintz]

Masterer wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 03:59

24 bit is for pussies. Just master the friggin' thing. ....and when he calls to tell you how great it sounds tell him you could have gotten it a little louder if it was 24 bit 'cause of the "increased dynamic range". watch how fast you get the 24 bit files.

Awesome. That's exactly what I did. I hate thinking about this stuff. The more I learn, the less I want to know.

[Mark Wilder]

I had to laugh at the title of this thread.  Many moons ago, a co-worker was quoted as saying:

"24 bits, 16 bits, Kibble and bits...What does it matter."

Sony Alumni still laugh at this one.

mgw

[escape]

Masterer wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 03:59

24 bit is for pussies. Just master the friggin' thing. ....and when he calls to tell you how great it sounds tell him you could have gotten it a little louder if it was 24 bit 'cause of the "increased dynamic range". watch how fast you get the 24 bit files.

LMFAO!!!
This would definitely work.

[Patrik T]

Bob Boyd wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 22:06

Bit depth does matter but I'll take a well done 16 bit DAT over hi res 24 bit hash any day.

Sometimes I want to start a topic entitled:

"When did digital become better and why?"

I think the conclusions would kind of walk in a reversed direction. After the ordinary 15 pages of hot discussion. Or maybe not.


Best Regards
Patrik

[chrisj]

Masterer wrote on Wed, 07 November 2007 03:59

....and when he calls to tell you how great it sounds tell him you could have gotten it a little louder if it was 24 bit 'cause of the "increased dynamic range". watch how fast you get the 24 bit files.

Loud laughing here too...

You're GOOD

[chrisj]

Wait, there's a catch.

Watch them open the mp3s in a wave editor, convert to 24 bit, duly save the results, and look at you expectantly...  

[Bob Olhsson]

If a "name" producer only has an audio CD, I'd be more worried about whether the guy had paid the studio where it was mixed.

[Greg Reierson]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 09:58

If a "name" producer only has an audio CD, I'd be more worried about whether the guy had paid the studio where it was mixed.

The modern day equivalent of "there was a problem at the studio and we only have this cassette..."

GR

[Tannoy]

Hi there,

there's one argument (in my opinion) against the use of a 16-bit input for mastering:

Since additional processing of the material will happen and this likely through some 24-bit devices,
additional dithering has to be done in any case. The mix you've got surely is already dithered.
Dithering always changes the sound of the material, more in a psychoacoustically than in a obviously
audible way. Some are talking about a slight veil that is added to the original sound, some about
an audible difference in the hi-mid to upper frequency range.
Anyhow, the thing is that double dithering (and this will happen in your case) will change the sound
even more since the dithering noise is added two times. It's not a must happen thing - but it can
lead to unwanted results. Some will recognize it, some won't.
But I think, your customer (in a bad case) maybe will complain about a sound that differs from other
masters he got - because of the fact, that he maybe has delivered 24-bit files to the mastering houses
the times before and now the whole thing sounds different somehow. Maybe this helps for negotiations
about the 24-bit files and yes, I think there's a huge difference in the sound of 16 and 24-bit, 24-bit has much more deepness and resolution.

Best regards,

Tannoy.

[Andy Krehm]

Noah Mintz wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 13:46

....I noticed from the HD that the original PT record files were 24bit 48khz....

I'm still surprised that nobody thinks that the conversion by the mixing studio from 48k to 44.1k isn't also an issue.

What if they used the fastest SRC in PTs in order to give the producer an audio disc?

The best PT's SRC is pretty good but usually not as good as some of the dedicated software SRCs. Add that to the bit reduction and double dithering and I think you'd have a noticible difference.

[Noah Mintz]

Andy Krehm wrote on Sat, 10 November 2007 17:16

Noah Mintz wrote on Mon, 05 November 2007 13:46 ....I noticed from the HD that the original PT record files were 24bit 48khz.... I'm still surprised that nobody thinks that the conversion by the mixing studio from 48k to 44.1k isn't also an issue. What if they used the fastest SRC in PTs in order to give the producer an audio disc? The best PT's SRC is pretty good but usually not as good as some of the dedicated software SRCs. Add that to the bit reduction and double dithering and I think you'd have a noticible difference.

I think the fact that there were no 16bit or 24bit stereo mixed files was an indication that the album might have been mixed analog directly to a stand alone cd burner. Again, this is only a guess.

I'll repeat that the producer seemed not worried at all that I was working with the 16bit audio cd and didn't have 24bit or 16bit files and seemed very unconcerned about them.

In the end, i think it sounded quite good so I'm not worried about it in the least. They sounded better than most 24bit 96khz files that I get on a daily basis.

My philopsphy; Don't get caught up in the numbers or the letters.  Everything you do to it changes it. Don't look at the frequencies, feel them (Ya I know how that sounds). Don't worry too much about the order of your equipment or which cables you use. Don't think too much. Just make it sound good no matter what you get.