Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-13-2019, 11:21 AM   #1
DeathByGuitar
Human being with feelings
 
DeathByGuitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 507
Default In the age of streaming, is there any point to recording in 44.1 anymore?

So CDs are pretty much dead. Every band I know prioritizes Bandcamp, Spotify and other streaming platforms. Is there any real point to recording in 44.1 these days in the grand scheme of things?
DeathByGuitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2019, 11:52 AM   #2
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

I think there are still some media players out there that will glitch with any sample rate above 44.1k. So not a good reason necessarily but...

You can absolutely stop reducing the bit rate from 24 to 16! (Unless authoring a CD edition of course.) The "standard" or "SD" format nowadays seems to be 24/44.1. The "HD" format is 24/96 and 24/48 is sort of lumped in with 24/96 even though it's technically SD.

Seems reasonable to produce a "SD" version at 24/44.1 in the spirit of providing a format for everyone.

I think an awful lot of the streaming services are still using CD sources which typically have volume war levels and bionic treble boosts. I think that's where a lot of the tinny harsh "streaming sound" comes from as opposed to the lossy compression. And then lossy compression on a volume war treble blasted source is it's own special kind of audio hell! But I digress...


There are a lot of reasons 48k should become the most popular sample rate format. The prevalence of video everything... Video uses 48k audio. The sweet spot for live audio systems is 48k. Live sound and performance systems have the lowest latency with the lowest processing hit at 48k. So... live recordings are all 24 bit 48k. Bluray doesn't support 44.1k (Did you know that? Bet you didn't know that.)

Last edited by serr; 11-13-2019 at 12:00 PM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2019, 12:40 PM   #3
DeathByGuitar
Human being with feelings
 
DeathByGuitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 507
Default

Yeah I get that a lot of streaming services are using CD sources. But what I mean is if I'm recording a new project, and I'm just some home project studio producer guy, is there any real reason to use 44.1 instead of 48 if it's mainly just gonna go up on Bandcamp and Soundcloud? My guess is no.

Almost all of my old projects are in 44.1 which I did because I figured "Well it's gonna end up on a CD anyway" but now I just think to myself "Who the hell listens to CDs anymore?".

Last edited by DeathByGuitar; 11-13-2019 at 12:48 PM.
DeathByGuitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2019, 12:54 PM   #4
Birdy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 437
Default

44.1 gives you that sweet warm rolled off sound without all those nasty super highs


















(guys this is a joke)
Birdy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2019, 01:54 PM   #5
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathByGuitar View Post
Yeah I get that a lot of streaming services are using CD sources. But what I mean is if I'm recording a new project, and I'm just some home project studio producer guy, is there any real reason to use 44.1 instead of 48 if it's mainly just gonna go up on Bandcamp and Soundcloud? My guess is no.

Almost all of my old projects are in 44.1 which I did because I figured "Well it's gonna end up on a CD anyway" but now I just think to myself "Who the hell listens to CDs anymore?".
The comment on what streaming services use for their sources was a digression. The lo-fi nature of those sources eclipses anything to do with any generational loss from sample rate conversion or even any lossy compression.

I'd say don't worry too much. Make your 24 bit recordings at whatever sample rate you need to use. Anything around live sound or performance with a computer dealing with 'real time' low latency settings should use 48k for optimal performance. Every reason to pay attention there. After that... Record at HD for studio projects if you please or record at 44.1k if that's required to save CPU on your system. The mix work is magnitudes more relevant!

Make all the other formats from your final 24 bit master. Provide a 24/44.1 version as the main SD consumer version to Bandcamp and streaming sites.

Personally, I'd like to see more surround mixes and I'd like to see Bandcamp start hosting multiple masters for an album (like stereo vs surround). The major label SOP of different price points for different levels of quality (with the surround mix usually only included in a deluxe boxed edition or not at all) is pretty greedy. And usually just results in the surround and HD copies simply going unheard. But I digress again...
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2019, 11:20 PM   #6
Ramirez
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Pwllheli, Wales
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathByGuitar View Post
...is there any real reason to use 44.1 instead of 48 if it's mainly just gonna go up on Bandcamp and Soundcloud? My guess is no.
Perhaps not, but conversely, is there any point using 48kHz if the audio is not intended for video? They are too close gor there to be any difference in quality.

Also, regarding 24 bit masters. What is the point in using 24 bit masters unless you really need the theoretical 144dB dynamic range that 24 bit gives? 16bit gives a theoretical 96dB which is MASSIVE, and way more than any mastered music recording. The extra bits are just wasted.

Always worth recording at 24bits of course, to make use of the headroom it allows.
Ramirez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 07:13 AM   #7
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramirez View Post
Perhaps not, but conversely, is there any point using 48kHz if the audio is not intended for video? They are too close gor there to be any difference in quality.

Also, regarding 24 bit masters. What is the point in using 24 bit masters unless you really need the theoretical 144dB dynamic range that 24 bit gives? 16bit gives a theoretical 96dB which is MASSIVE, and way more than any mastered music recording. The extra bits are just wasted.

Always worth recording at 24bits of course, to make use of the headroom it allows.
16 bit doesn't really give you 96db of dynamic range though. You need SOME bit depth left at the bottom to define something. A 3 bit resolution recording of a sonic element is nothing but distortion, for example. 24 bit gives you genuinely 96db dynamic range with the lowest signal still having 8 bit resolution. Considering the same "digital noise floor" value of 8 bits, 16 bit format gives you 48db usable dynamic range.

Just multiplying 6db by 16 and calling that entire result the usable dynamic range would be like ignoring noise in an analog system and still calling it usable dynamic range down into full noise floor.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 08:18 AM   #8
DeathByGuitar
Human being with feelings
 
DeathByGuitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 507
Default

Interesting insights, guys. To be clear, I've only ever recorded in 24 bit. I was just talking about whether to record projects in 44.1 or 48, like if the conversion crap from 48 to 44.1 is worth the trouble. Some of my plugins act funny sometimes when rendering 48 to 44. I'm probably answering my own question at this point, now that I think of it.
DeathByGuitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 08:54 AM   #9
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

I'd say, if you can record and mix at 96k for studio projects then consider doing that. 96k is the "set it and forget it" format as it were. Any reductions from that will be the fullest quality possible - regarding fidelity issues around formats.

Keep running any live systems at 48k. 48k will be plenty perfect for your live recordings. Dealing with the challenges of mixing a live recording will be the focus there anyway!

Not sure how much going from 44.1k to 48k will do for you if 96k is a no go. Do whatever involves the least amount of conversions. If you like releasing your masters in 24/48 FLAC or bluray disc, record at 48k. The 24/44.1 SD version you make for Bandcamp will be just fine. But if you're only releasing that 24/44.1 copy anyway. And your system struggles at 96k. Just stay at 44.1k.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 01:59 PM   #10
future fields
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 604
Default

44.1khz for life here

I see no reason for frequencies higher than 22khz *shrug*

CD's sound amazing to me, much better than streaming
__________________
YouTube
future fields is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 02:59 PM   #11
analogexplosions
Human being with feelings
 
analogexplosions's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Nashville
Posts: 360
Default

My system is always either set for 48 or 96, unless i'm working on recording something that i need to time stretch to oblivion, then i record that at 192.

I can't remember the last time i worked in 44.1.
__________________
www.dungeonbeach.com
analogexplosions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2019, 09:43 PM   #12
Eddy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 412
Default

48 or 96 for me as well. Actually sometimes I use 384kHz but that is for recording bats and insects
Eddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 02:02 AM   #13
Aeolian
Human being with feelings
 
Aeolian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere PRO
Posts: 1,049
Default

I've recorded and mixed at 24/44.1 since forever, and I've just always then dithered the final down to 16/44.1, because it was a strict standard to do so when I first starting learning, and I've since grown fond of it

I'll then render a good old fashioned mp3 from the 16bit mix.

If I need to send out a 48k or 96k mix, I'll make an upsampled version from the 24/44.1.
__________________
"REAPER... You're simply the best" - Tina Turner
Aeolian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 08:11 AM   #14
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
16 bit doesn't really give you 96db of dynamic range though. You need SOME bit depth left at the bottom to define something. A 3 bit resolution recording of a sonic element is nothing but distortion, for example.
I'd love to know if I'm missing something, but how do you explain these listenable examples at 2 and 3 bit's of quantization?

https://dspillustrations.com/pages/p...ise-sound.html

The song is still clearly audible at 1 bit.

I seem to remember sampling audio that sounded pretty much exactly like the 1 bit example with some software for my Commodore 64 and it's tape player.

Last edited by drumphil; 11-15-2019 at 08:17 AM.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 08:24 AM   #15
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Philbo King's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy View Post
48 or 96 for me as well. Actually sometimes I use 384kHz but that is for recording bats and insects


Do you get a lot of recording clients from that sector of the market?
__________________
Tangent Studio - Philbo King
www.soundclick.com/philboking - Audio streams
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 08:30 AM   #16
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
I'd love to know if I'm missing something, but how do you explain these listenable examples at 2 and 3 bit's of quantization?

https://dspillustrations.com/pages/p...ise-sound.html

The song is still clearly audible at 1 bit.

I seem to remember sampling audio that sounded pretty much exactly like the 1 bit example with some software for my Commodore 64 and it's tape player.
Maybe taking it a bit too literal because those 3 bit examples sound like nothing but distortion to me whether you can make out what the song is or not.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 09:08 AM   #17
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
I'd love to know if I'm missing something, but how do you explain these listenable examples at 2 and 3 bit's of quantization?

https://dspillustrations.com/pages/p...ise-sound.html

The song is still clearly audible at 1 bit.

I seem to remember sampling audio that sounded pretty much exactly like the 1 bit example with some software for my Commodore 64 and it's tape player.
Um... They're full of shit?
If I route sound to Reaper, open a Bitter plugin, and hit play I see a 24 bit audio stream. Could be simply a genuine 2 bit signal in a 24 bit container of course. I don't know what they've got going on that site and I don't really care. It kind of follows common sense that 2 or 3 bits alone can't resolve very much. (It sure would have opened the floodgates for near zero cost bandwidth for streaming if it did!)

48db usable dynamic range is still pretty big too!
Audiophile vinyl setups with one of the handful of really well mastered dynamic albums can maybe hit 70db dynamic range. The DJ rigs and the weird turntable at grandma's house are around 30db tops. CD was a big upgrade for many. (Even when mastered kind of shitty.)

But 24 bit gives you 96db with an 8db "noise floor" ("resolution" floor?). Kind of a "We're done here!" format. I don't know why the "Let's pretend we don't understand the concept of a noise floor or digital resolution and just multiply the number of bits X 6db." thing took off in labeling dynamic range on digital devices. It's probably just marketing brochure dishonesty run wild.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 09:21 AM   #18
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Quote:
Um... They're full of shit?
I'd be curious to know how I could get an audible comprehensible playback of one or two bit (can't remember, but it wasn't more than that) sampling from my C64 datasette tape drive player thing.

Are you sure?

These guys actually show their code, and provide examples you can listen to. Did you actually check it out?

This is the guy who made the site:

Quote:
Hi, I'm Max.
I obtained my PhD at the Vodafone Chair for Mobile Communication Systems at the Technical University Dresden, Germany in 2018. My research concerns fundamentals of communication theory and waveform design for future wireless cellular networks. I am particularly interested in MIMO techniques for non-orthogonal waveforms.

I started this site because I want to help out students having problems understanding stuff only from equations and theory. I want to inspire to model results in terms of code and graphics. I believe the best way to achieve this, is to tightly interweave theory, code and its result in a single document.

Drop me a line in the comments, in case you are interested in a particular topic I could provide some illustrations.

Maybe I'm just too dense to get it, but on the basis of being able to make out a song audibly at 1, 2 and 3 bit's quantization, I wonder if you're maybe missing something too.

If you're right, I shouldn't be able to hear the song at 2 bits, but I can, so either I'm misunderstand you and/or the concepts, their code and/or audio examples are wrong, or you're at least a bit wrong about something.

I've got an open mind. I just want to expand my understanding.

Last edited by drumphil; 11-15-2019 at 09:31 AM.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 09:42 AM   #19
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

I mean... First they need to explain why they reformatted their 2 or 3 bit data to 24 bit. Background: If you simply put a 3 bit signal into a 24 bit container, you still have that 3 bit signal unaltered and a bit meter would show that. So... something went awry with their demonstration when they tried it 1:1 like that - or so I assume because they're sharing a 24 bit recording they claim is 2 bit. Normalized perhaps? Simply so you could hear it because it would be too low volume otherwise? Probably that.

It still sounds plenty distorted of course. And no one is making bank with their 3 bit streaming service!

If someone is truly entertaining the idea that 2 or 3 bits can resolve music... I don't know. Put them in a room with one of the "stairstep" people and put on some popcorn or something.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 09:45 AM   #20
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

I just don't see what the difference between 16 and 12 bits is, that is different from the difference between 8 and 4 bits, apart from the distance from the noise floor.

Quote:
If someone is truly entertaining the idea that 2 or 3 bits can resolve music
Have you actually examined their code or listened to their examples?

Here is some audio quantized to 4 bits. Skip forward to 25 seconds for the 4 bit quantized example.



Can you resolve the music? I've heard worse cassette tapes.

I don't think the rules change for the less significant bits when compared to the more significant bits.

Quote:
Normalized perhaps? Simply so you could hear it because it would be too low volume otherwise? Probably that.
Would be silly to do it any other way if you want people to actually be able hear what it sounds like. But I think you'd get the exact same result by turning your amp up really really loud. And because your audio interface doesn't accept 2 bit 44.1K audio input.

Bons points for their example of Gangnam style, which has less dynamic range to start with, and so sounds less different from the original when you drop the bit depth.

Last edited by drumphil; 11-15-2019 at 10:02 AM.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:14 AM   #21
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
Bons points for their example of Gangnam style, which has less dynamic range to start with, and so sounds less different from the original when you drop the bit depth.
Yea, but I see it the other way around, if you are going to demonstrate bit rate, you need to do with with material that it matters for, Gangman style is anything but that - that's not a new opinion for this thread, it's what I thought when I originally saw it on audiocheck.net a couple years ago. AKA why the heck are they using something with 2 bits of DR to demonstrate LOL.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:18 AM   #22
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

I do think it illustrates the point that if your music has small enough dynamic range, then only using a small number of bits doesn't really matter. It's not like the smaller bits are inferior in some way, other than their proximity to the noise floor.

Ultimately everything is going to get normalized by the listener with their volume knob until it's as loud as they want.

The only time it really seems to matter is if there is a gap in the music where the noise floor can actually be heard.

Their first example is Led Zepplin, and the noise is much more apparent, but I could still enjoy listening to it like that, just like I could and did on my third generation copy tapes on my walkman.

Last edited by drumphil; 11-15-2019 at 10:25 AM.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:23 AM   #23
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
I do think it illustrates the point that if your music has small enough dynamic range, then only using a small number of bits doesn't really matter. It's not like the smaller bits are inferior in some way, other than their proximity to the noise floor.

The only time it really seems to matter is if there is a gap in the music where the noise floor can actually be heard.
Slightly OT: Yea I agree but these specs are there to handle the gamut of conditions so it's easy to demonstrate something that doesn't stress the technology and assume it's not needed or at minimum assume wrongly. That's my beef with that test on audio check - I otherwise love that site.

Same with 44.1, it'll pass an awful lot of ABX tests, until you have that one unusual synth sound where aliasing is sticking out like a sore thumb. I'm probably never going to hit that personally but I have seen it demonstrated.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:27 AM   #24
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

I don't know about "audio check", but I don't think that's the point of the examples I've posted.

I just struggle with the idea that the last few lowest bits somehow have less fidelity than the higher bits in any other way than their proximity to the noise floor.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:28 AM   #25
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
I don't know about "audio check", but I don't think that's the point of the examples I've posted.
It may not be but it is important to note for this thread. They just happen to do the exact same demonstration for bit rates, which I mildly disagree with because the content chosen doesn't need the bits, while a majority of music we, or at least I make does.

Enjoy...

https://www.audiocheck.net/

https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_index.php
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:32 AM   #26
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Quote:
which I mildly disagree with because that content doesn't need the bits while a boat load of music we make does.
Well, that depends on what point you're trying to make, about what set of circumstances.

But I still think the underlying principles hold fast.

I'll repeat it, just because I've edited my posts to add more thoughts, so you may have missed it:

Quote:
I just struggle with the idea that the last few lowest bits somehow have less fidelity than the higher bits in any other way than their proximity to the noise floor.
That's my main though about this discussion.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:39 AM   #27
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
Here is some audio quantized to 4 bits. Skip forward to 25 seconds for the 4 bit quantized example.
Seeing 24 bit on the meter again...
Again, if it was normalized to raise the volume... Kind of need to admit that and explain.

Jesus H... We've now gone from the stairstep people to qualifying 3 bit listening!
Have fun with that!
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:43 AM   #28
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
I just struggle with the idea that the last few lowest bits somehow have less fidelity than the higher bits in any other way than their proximity to the noise floor.
They don't!

Bits by themselves have no 'sound'.
A number of bits can be used to make samples of sound. Every bit is either a one or zero no matter what digit of the number it represents is. The container we build out of bits and the size thereof is the point. The small cherry coke tastes every bit the same as the large but there's less of it. Saying "there's less of it" doesn't invalidate the taste. Probably a shitty analogy but there it is.

It IS an eyebrow raiser as it were to discover this digital format we created has lower fidelity the lower in volume you go! All you have to do is think of a base bitdepth as analogous to the noise floor in analog. Leave a few bits down there and don't go trying to resolve sound in the bottom of the digital format and it's a moot point. It really ends up working that way. A 48db usable dynamic range with 16 bit is still pretty darn complete fidelity. That aligns with listening to a CD that sounds pretty darn good (or perhaps even perfect!)


One comment as a consumer:
Buying a 24 bit HD download or a bluray disc and discovering the same 16 bit mastered for CD program on it isn't a very good look. Someone mentioned doing that. I'm guessing the aim wasn't to bait and switch in this case. But it still comes across looking that way. And we're in the age where the major labels sell different format quality for different price points. The real problem with most CDs is the crude ear-bleeder volume and treble boosts of course but just saying.

Last edited by serr; 11-15-2019 at 10:55 AM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:45 AM   #29
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post

That's my main though about this discussion.
Yea, I didn't disagree with your main point - I was just saying "if" we are going to care about bit rates, we'd want to do it with music that actually uses more than two bits. That's completely outside Serr's idea of bottom-most bits or whatever he was saying.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 10:51 AM   #30
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,738
Default

Quote:
Seeing 24 bit on the meter again...
Again, if it was normalized to raise the volume... Kind of need to admit that and explain.
I really don't get what your point is. What is the difference between doing that, and just telling people to turn their amp up to 11? Dynamic range is always relative between a low floor and a maximum level relative to that.

Quote:
A 48db usable dynamic range with 16 bit is still pretty darn complete fidelity.
I still have no idea how you came up with that 48db figure. That's what's really puzzling me, and making me think that either I've got a hole in my understanding, or that you do. And I've not heard an explanation from you that clears it all up in my brain, and leaves me happy that I've expanded my understanding of the issues.

Last edited by drumphil; 11-15-2019 at 11:01 AM.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 11:28 AM   #31
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,557
Default

If you consider the bottom 8 bits as the base digital resolution floor (analogous to the analog noise floor in an analog system), that leaves you with the top 8 bits left to use for the meat of your program in a 16 bit syetem. 8 X 8db = 48db.

I'm arbitrarily deciding to call the bottom 8 bits the "noise floor". I think it's pretty reasonable. Just like calling the bottom 8 bits in 24 bit format the "noise floor".

The bits define discrete volume levels you can resolve in a sample of a signal. The more resolution, the more fine discrete volume values you can resolve. Hysteresis at 8 bit or less leaves the program pretty distorted.

Heh, this style of volume war mastering with CD editions works out to more like a 12 bit "noise floor" and the top 4 bits left for the actual program dynamics. (Stating it that way as a way to describe the mad compression.) Do you like the sound of the dynamics crushed like that?
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2019, 12:29 PM   #32
Eddy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philbo King View Post
Do you get a lot of recording clients from that sector of the market?
ha ha
Eddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.