Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

A place to talk about whatever Scope music/gear related stuff you want.

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
Liquid EDGE
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Brighton England
Contact:

Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Liquid EDGE » Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:07 am

Hi.

It’s about time I started working in 24bit. All my samples are 16bit/44.1khz and any audio I record is in 16bit/44.1khz. Never really thought of it as much of an issue as everything within scope and within cubase runs at 32bit float. Plus I don’t use a huge amount of audio.

Anyhows, is it really worth it to go 24bit for samples from now on (thinking mainly drum hits) as mostly everything else is scope synths or vsts.

And what are the true merits of going up to 96khz?

What sort of holds me back going that hi is still using windows xp (so 4gig ram is the most) and my other “weakest link” is the ada8200 Adat I/O which goes to a maximum of 48khz.

What do you guys and girls work in? What’s really noticeable and why is it better?

User avatar
t_tangent
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by t_tangent » Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:28 am

Liquid, there is a good thread about 96kHz already going on here http://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=35500

As for 24 bit, I always tend to record as 24 bit wave files. Yes it requires a little more resources such as more ram and hard drive space, but with a modern ish DAW setup Its not too much of an overhead.

User avatar
Marco
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Marco » Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:15 am

Some people think the 96 kHz makes your Sound better, but the truth is first when your mixing is perfect, then you might think about 96khz. I never needed it.
Scope 7 user since 2017 and Scope user since 1998. :o

User avatar
garyb
Posts: 21590
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by garyb » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:32 am

96k is luxury food.

24bit is good organic human feed...

User avatar
petal
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by petal » Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:25 pm

As in: better than the ordinary and tasty nontoxic quality?

User avatar
dante
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by dante » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:04 pm

I don't think you can necessarily come to a decision about 96KHz from reading about it. You really have to use it on a fair few mixes over many days to really appreciate the difference. As quoted elsewhere, 96KHz processing reduces audible artifacts and this in turn has an impact on the overall quality - depending on how much material invoked artifacts in the first place.

For the first few days or mixes it will be difficult to know what to listen to. Lets say 96Khz is an acquired hearing experience.

User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Bud Weiser » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:44 pm

For me, the main question is "Do I make more money ?" in 96KHz or will there come up more problems like losing sample sets, need more memory and so on.
For sure, working @ higher sample rates reduces artifacts and s##t,- but OTOH it really depends on the client´s hearing,- isn´t it ?

Today in most cases, it will be shrinked to the BELOW anyway ...
modern_recording.JPG
modern_recording.JPG (110.46 KiB) Viewed 1107 times
:D

Bud
CFD,- the studio standard :wink:

User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Bud Weiser » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:55 pm

dante wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:04 pm
Lets say 96Khz is an acquired hearing experience.
Yes !

But I not only prefer to use band-limited OSCs ... in my age, I also have at least 1 band limited ear ... :lol: :lol: :lol:
That´s the result of rock ´n roll I think,- but that´s only me and in most other cases beyond the age of 50+, the 96K hearing experience seems to be some kind of fairytale.
That might not rule for mastering engineers per sé (or at all), but I also expect in the domain of audio engineers we can expect hearing loss sooner or later.

So, while it´s true there will be less artefacts when working in 96KHz SR, it can also be considered as an end in and of itself.
I just only say that because I already don´t hear much difference in artefacts when comparing 44.1K and 48K.
OTOH I accept those exist within some measurable range.
But I doubt it´s audible for the most.
LBNL it might be questionable if it´s worth acquireing that hearing ability at all and WHEN.
And if YES, there´s the "How to ...?"
I guess one has to start early w/ that and have a life avoiding hearing damage all the time.
I doubt most musicians had and have such life.

We should also not forget, digital recording isn´t the holy grail at all !
All the hits and successful recorded (concept and prog) albums of the past (70s, 80s and also much in the 90s) were recorded on tape and sound great.
They probably sound greater than most or many digital recordings,- but for sure made more cash than most of today´s recordings.
At least I see, in today´s digital recording, they try to emulate tape,- some thing that amuses me a lot.
I also regret the youngsters will never experience the sound of real vintage tubes because there´s no company in the world anymore being able manufacturing that quality tubes being manufactured in the past.
So, never ever is the digital recording kind of holy grail, may it be 44.1, 48 or 96+ KHz,- except in the editing department !

I´d like to avoid the discussion about who needs all these advanced editing features and for what.

:)

Bud
CFD,- the studio standard :wink:

jksuperstar
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:57 pm

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by jksuperstar » Tue May 01, 2018 10:21 am

Back to 16bit vs. 24bit:
My two cents (or sense) is that use it if you have it, but drums of all instruments benefit the least from the larger samples.

Drums, in a mix, (and in my senses), have the least dynamic range, in terms of raw sample bits that come through directly in a mix (samples without reverb have limited tails, and most drum samples are scaled by velocity, which could be a 24bit operation). This is especially true if you do any filtering, compression, and reverb after the sample oscillator/player. Those lower bits get filled in by those effects anyway.

So, I wouldnt grow drums into 24bits unless you already had the samples and the system to support it.

User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Bud Weiser » Tue May 01, 2018 7:17 pm

jksuperstar wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:21 am
Back to 16bit vs. 24bit:
My two cents (or sense) is that use it if you have it, but drums of all instruments benefit the least from the larger samples.
What does "larger samples" mean ?
More bit depth or higher sample rate ?

In my experience, drums always benefit from being recorded on a 2" tape,- MCI 16 track MTR prefered over 24-track MTR !
Means, there was more dynamic range when using 16 tracks on 2" tape vs. 24 tracks.
NOTHING digital sounds like that, period.

But,- it´s also questionable if any audience will notice any difference compared to other, digital included, recording techniques.
jksuperstar wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:21 am
Drums, in a mix, (and in my senses), have the least dynamic range,...
That´s absolutely not true !
In fact, it depends on what you define as "drums".
When you listen to drummers and percussionists like Jim Keltner, Steve Gadd, Jeff Porcaro, Elvin Jones, Peter Erskine, Don Alias, Do Um Romao, Lenny Castro, Pete Escovedo & Sheila E.- just only to name a very few,- you´ll recognize those players require the most demanding recording job ever.
Recording real drums and percussion, using mics, gates and compressors together w/ a console and in a musical context is a task most cannot handle today anymore.
Finding the right room to do that is a task in addition !
jksuperstar wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:21 am
... in terms of raw sample bits that come through directly in a mix (samples without reverb have limited tails, and most drum samples are scaled by velocity, which could be a 24bit operation). This is especially true if you do any filtering, compression, and reverb after the sample oscillator/player. Those lower bits get filled in by those effects anyway.

So, I wouldnt grow drums into 24bits unless you already had the samples and the system to support it.
Stop thinking "samples" !
You can buy drums and percussion as sample-libraries, but they will never be the same as the real instruments.
Same rules for all the other instruments as well.
That´s why HZ uses his, already customized, sample library just only for the layouts while at the end of the day a real orchestrta and additional musicians perform the final recordings.

For sure it´s easy to put sampled instruments in a mix and they truly have a limited dynamic range,- just because they are already EQed and compressed !

It´s the "bread & butter" stuff any of today´s "wannabe" composer/producer/engineer can buy w/ some software,- as long he can afford.

Bud
CFD,- the studio standard :wink:

User avatar
petal
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by petal » Wed May 02, 2018 11:44 am

One of the reasons I bought the Xite was to get higher voice count on the Solaris and the Quantum - I got the opposite.

Another reason was to get the power to go 96Khz, but I ended up sticking my tail between my legs hoping my ears and equipment survived the experiment.

Unless you are used to and like keeping "the queen of Sheba" happy, stay in the land of the forties and chill out - Peace

User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Bud Weiser » Wed May 02, 2018 8:16 pm

petal wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:44 am
One of the reasons I bought the Xite was to get higher voice count on the Solaris and the Quantum - I got the opposite.
Me too,- but who´s fault is that ?
Solaris and Quantum Wave aren´t S|C devices while XITE-1 is S|C´s 1st hardware device.
J.B. never owned a XITE-1 and didn´t use SDK 5 AFAIK ...
He was never indented to do so because there were Creamware times when he desgned his ZARG devices,- not S|C times.
For John, you at least can hope for some optimizations or updates for some or a few of his devices,- for other companies like Softtube p.ex. you can´t.

I recognize S|C is one (if not the only one) company on this planet supporting hardware from late 90s and trying to keep backwards compatibility alive for old CW hardware and devices, offering updated/upgraded SCOPE software versions running on XITE and old PCI cards.
IMO that´s great, but there will always something not work as expected when doing that balancing act !

petal wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:44 am
Another reason was to get the power to go 96Khz, but I ended up sticking my tail between my legs hoping my ears and equipment survived the experiment.
I hope your tail survived too ! :lol:
petal wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 11:44 am
... stay in the land of the forties and chill out - Peace
Even born in ´55,- I try !

:)

Bud
CFD,- the studio standard :wink:

User avatar
petal
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by petal » Wed May 02, 2018 11:53 pm

Yeah - I should have done more research on what the Xite could and could not do. And it is true that John developed his synths on the PCI-cards running version 3.? software I believe. He has looked into optimizing the Solaris and the Quantum, but this cannot be done because of hardware constraints on the XITE. My not too obvious point with this story was, that changing to 96khz will only create further trouble for your daily business with the system.

I have only had succes running 96Khz on very specific tasks running very simple setups, like FM-experiments in the modular, which does sound noticeably different. But building more advanced setups using different kinds of synths including third parties and free stuff, will only lead to all kinds of weird trouble and buggy behavior.

User avatar
dante
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by dante » Thu May 03, 2018 6:58 pm

Liquid EDGE wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:07 am
What do you guys and girls work in? What’s really noticeable and why is it better?
Another thing I'm noticing about 96KHz is from the fact that when I first started using it, I was re-mixing audio recorded years ago in either 22, 44 or 48 KHz - as far back as 1997. With Scope running at 96Khz and using for example PsyQ I was able to add some of that missing sheen from 22 or 44 khz recordings of guitars and vocals.

More recently, I've been recording those live parts at 96KHz. So that's where I'm noticing a real difference - when recording 96KHz at source.

So even if you don't want to run your whole mixing setup at 96KHz, you could consider a separate recording project that runs at 96Khz with only the plugins you need for recording - then make downsampled copies of your audio and mix that with all your plugins running at 48 KHz. In future, when you have a beefier system, you then have the opportunity to do the full mixing with the 96Khz performances preserved.

Its a bit of overhead - but worth it in spades when you get to a future system.

User avatar
dante
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by dante » Thu May 03, 2018 7:00 pm

dante wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 6:58 pm
Liquid EDGE wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 1:07 am
What do you guys and girls work in? What’s really noticeable and why is it better?
Another thing I'm noticing about 96KHz is from the fact that when I first started using it, I was re-mixing audio recorded years ago in either 22, 44 or 48 KHz - as far back as 1997. With Scope running at 96Khz and using for example PsyQ I was able to add some of that missing sheen from 22 or 44 khz recordings of guitars and vocals.

More recently, I've been recording those live parts at 96KHz. So that's where I'm noticing a real difference - when recording 96KHz at source.

So even if you don't want to run your whole mixing setup at 96KHz, you could consider a separate recording project that runs at 96Khz with only the plugins you need for recording - then make downsampled copies of your audio and mix that with all your plugins running at 48 KHz. In future, when you have a beefier system, you then have the opportunity to do the full mixing with the 96Khz performances preserved.

Its a bit of overhead - but worth it in spades when you get to a future system. Especially if you have had sessions with pro shredders and hot backing chicks :lol:

Liquid EDGE
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Brighton England
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Liquid EDGE » Sat May 05, 2018 11:46 am

Lot of food for thought. Thanks guys, And thanks for pointing me to the discussion on 96khz.

I’ve just realised that the only thing I didn’t have set up at 24bit or above was the cubase recording project. The Asio is 24bit in and out for example.

I’ve also noticed some sample libraries, say maschine. Seems to be a mixture of 24bit and 16bit samples.

Anyhows, I think for the moment I’m going to up the recording to 24bit in project set up of cubase and be a bit more aware with what samples I use and record (I assume sts can record 24bit)

Also, does vdat, if I’m recording 16bit directly from the master out from a scope mixer, do its own dithering?

User avatar
garyb
Posts: 21590
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by garyb » Sat May 05, 2018 12:43 pm

that is generally a good approach, however when it comes to sample players, i'll just remind you that some of the greatest sampled sounds have been 12bit and under. it really depends on what kinds of sounds you are looking for. ultimately, it's how the sounds are used, more than how perfect the sounds are. as they say in Jamaica, "don't watch the tool. watch the man that's behind it".

dithering is something that can be VERY important if the recording is of a very dynamic acoustic sound, specifically Jazz and Classical. for a pop recording, dithering is a waste of time, since there just aren't those passages where an acoustic instrument is all alone in a quiet space, where quantization errors can even be heard. dithering increases the usable dynamic range, surprisingly by adding noise. no pop music has need of this. just truncate the signal. there is no difference in a 16bit or 24bit signal near the upper end of the dynamic range. the difference is when nearing silence. 24bit's extra 8 bits means more resolution at lower levels. since pop music uses a lot of limiting and compression to reduce the dynamic range, those extra 8 bits only matter in the initial recording. when reducing to 16bit, the signal is already limited to the upper range, so when the extra 8 bits of data are lopped off by the reduction in bit depth from 24 to 16bit, the integrity of the signal is not compromised.

it's similar with higher sample rates. while there is some advantage to mixing in the higher samplerate because the digital artifacts created will be moved to twice the highest range a human can hear, playback devices like stereos and mp3 players cannot reproduce the high frequencies which are where the benefit is. then, if the track is downsampled, there are serious quantization errors which all but wipe out the gains. that means that it's not much help for the final product. it's better to learn the craft than it is to rely strictly on the machine. of course, if you are only impressing yourself, or have too much money anyway, then my argument is moot. you will only hear a significant gain from 96k when using digital devices with poor digital filters, and/or when using studio monitors, the only speakers that will reproduce the frequencies that benefit. if you DO hear the difference in typical playback environments, then the problem was not the samplerate, but it is poor recording and mixing techniques.

User avatar
dante
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by dante » Sun May 06, 2018 6:01 pm

garyb wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:43 pm
that is generally a good approach, however when it comes to sample players, i'll just remind you that some of the greatest sampled sounds have been 12bit and under.
So much so that is a desired sound. Just got this recently so can apply it to modern samples :)

rx950.jpg
RX950
rx950.jpg (253.43 KiB) Viewed 694 times

User avatar
krizrox
Posts: 1322
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Elgin, IL USA
Contact:

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by krizrox » Mon May 07, 2018 7:46 am

I have to check mixes on that stupid little hole in the bottom of the iPhone now. I've been doing this for almost 20 years. Hundreds and hundreds of artists. In all that time not a single person has asked me to record at 96kHz. I've never received any files from other studios recorded at 96kHz. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there pushing the envelope but that ain't me. Regardless, I looked into this a long time ago and decided the smallish sonic benefit wasn't worth the extra cost and time for archiving anything at 96k. I was generating enough data to make backup and archive something important to consider. Especially since I was eating the cost for that. I'll bet I could record most of my clients at 16/44.1 and none of them would know or care.

User avatar
Bud Weiser
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:29 am
Location: nowhere land

Re: Merits of going 24bit/96khz?

Post by Bud Weiser » Mon May 07, 2018 11:55 am

krizrox wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 7:46 am
... for almost 20 years. Hundreds and hundreds of artists. In all that time not a single person has asked me to record at 96kHz. I've never received any files from other studios recorded at 96kHz. ... I'll bet I could record most of my clients at 16/44.1 and none of them would know or care.
+1 !

Same here and 32Bit float/44.1K was always perfect.
I know producers in person who papered their walls w/ golden and platinum records,- and they always recorded w/ 16Bit/44.1K or 32Bit float/44.1K in Protool, Logic or Cubase/Nuendo.
And their recordings sound awesome.

OTOH, I think at least all acoustic solo instrument performances, classical/orchestral music, probably acoustic jazz too, they all profit from higher sample rates and more bit-depth because of dynamic range.
Pop-, Rock- and Fusion stuff won´t.
When you have a loud drumkit and loud bass in the music, lot´s of compressed signals, you can still record in 16Bit 44.1K when taking care not to lose too many bits and not going into digital clipping.
24Bit/48KHz will be on the safe side always IMO.

:)

Bud
CFD,- the studio standard :wink:

Post Reply