HMHS 180 - Voicemail (11/6/09)

Check out the Home Made Hit Show with Tony and Dave at http://homemadehitshow.com
User avatar
chckn8r
dues paid
dues paid
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:45 pm
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: HMHS 180 - Voicemail (11/6/09)

Post by chckn8r » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:07 pm

Grandma Melonhead wrote:You might think that 24 bit is just 50% more than 16 bit but its much more than that. Each bit you add doubles the possible permutations of 0s and 1s. 17 bit would be the double of 16 bit. 24 bit is actually 256 times the vertical resolution of 16 bit. Thats a lotta room! If I have this wrong please corect me.
You're quite right on 24 bit (16,777,216 combinations of 1's and 0's) having an exponential increase of bits over 16 bit (65,536 combinations), but the other side of the coin is that sound pressure measured in decibels also represents a exponential scale (or logrithmic if you prefer) - every increase of 3dB represents a doubling of sound pressure (or something being perceived as twice as loud).

So in theory, 16 bit can only really represent a 96 dB dynamic range while 24 bit can only represent 144 dB of dynamic range.

That's one of the big reasons that 24 bit has gained as the "standard" bit depth for recording audio - it gives you a lot more headroom to play with without having to worry about bit dithering quantization at lower levels - you can sometimes hear this on classical CD's especially on reverb trails at low levels where things start to lose definition because of the few bits being used to represent the audio dynamics.
Zoetrope wrote:Most importantly, and as Tony points out, most people are listening to their music on systems with such crap earphones or speakers (and frequently in noisy environments) that they wouldn't be able to hear the difference between a well encoded MP3 and the wav file.
I agree with Tony too in that the average Joe listener isn't really going to be concerned with audio quality - what I think record companies and electronics manufacturers missed over the years was that convenience and portability were the driving consumer-choice factors... not audio quality. Music listening to 90+% of the listening audience is a passive activity and not an active one. One of the reasons that DVD-Audio and SACD (and FLAC for that matter) formats haven't taken off - most people couldn't give a hoot about increased fidelity - when given a choice, they'll chose the format that gives them something that's "good enough", but more importantly it is convenient (i.e. can fit more songs on my device to listen to anytime and anywhere I want...).

That being said, pretty well all of us will be concerned with audio quality in our own recodings and starting off with the best that we can muster WILL be important in that we'll be actively listening to and making detailed decisions on our own audio mixes...
0 x
"no, I didn't get any comments about my last name when I was little, why do you ask?"

Composer/Alpha Chicken: Hatched Productions
Co-Host: Inside Home Recording
Songwriting Trainwrecks: SoundClick Page

Grandma Melonhead
member in good standing
member in good standing
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: HMHS 180 - Voicemail (11/6/09)

Post by Grandma Melonhead » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:19 am

Yeah, what chckn8r said.

Yeah, just because the average punter isn’t going to be concerned about the quality of our recordings, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be. I do appreciate that some people are rendered helpless by their own perfectionism. And in actuality I would like to hear a lot more humanism and a lot less polishing in modern recording.

The quality that I am looking for in my music is just simple clarity and presence that I suspect that you only get from higher quality gear than I have. Transparency is what I mean. WIth my recordings it sounds like there is a cheesecloth placed over the speakers or something. When i listen to franks recordings it sounds like he is singing h=in the room with me. (in fact, if I had the carity I want I would be less prone to piling on the instruments as I do this largely to make up for the poor sound)

Now frank has a 4000 dollar mic pre and a 2000 dallar vocal mic etc (i trust his wife isnt reading this board). All my stuff is budget. I dont know if I will ever have that kind of stuff. This makes me sad. But the thing about 24 bit is I dont have to save up, I can just decide to switch to the professional standard. I can hear a difference with it and it doesnt cost me anything.

Zoetrope wrote:Perhaps he meant flac?
I actually meant ALE which is quite possible the same thing as FLAC (but owned by someone else). It is also lossless and reduces file size by 50%.
0 x

User avatar
chckn8r
dues paid
dues paid
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:45 pm
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: HMHS 180 - Voicemail (11/6/09)

Post by chckn8r » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:06 pm

Just listened to the Sound On Sound Podcast - they chat about gain structure in DAWs that was quite interesting ... some of the floating point math stuff hurt my head though...

http://www.soundonsound.com/podcast/sos_podcast_019.mp3
0 x
"no, I didn't get any comments about my last name when I was little, why do you ask?"

Composer/Alpha Chicken: Hatched Productions
Co-Host: Inside Home Recording
Songwriting Trainwrecks: SoundClick Page

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest