|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913 |
Quote:
Quote:
They need to be understood without some ancient tape jockey babbling about headroom and frequency response.
Hi, all. I think I just recognized myself, there!
Actually, I completely agree with the 16/24 argument, but I think that, sometimes, we assume that better equipment makes better recordings, without acknowledging the difference made by the skill of the operator.
In my view, the differences between 16/24 are hard to detect, whilst the skill of the operator makes a huge difference. Some of us who remember working with tape, when you had a noise floor you could measure on the VUs and nothing was tracked without a compressor to preserve the s/n ratio without switching in the Dolbys, are quite happy to stick with 16 bit.
Just sayin....
ROG.
I've worked in both worlds, tape and digital - in many formats. I don't have measurement equipment at home that is precise enough to show the difference between 16 and 24 bit. What I do know is that since switching over to 24 bit, I've not had to wring my hands about trying to maximize the input range of my A/D for every track. I can be quite sloppy with it, and when I then go back and boost those low-level recorded signals, they are still doggoned clean sounding. This is not the case when doing the same practice with 16 bit. I can indeed start to hear hiss if I take a recording that I made perhaps 25 dB down in 16 bit, then boost it up 20 dB. Try that experiment for yourself.
-Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
Quote:
Quote:
They need to be understood without some ancient tape jockey babbling about headroom and frequency response.
Hi, all. I think I just recognized myself, there!
Actually, I completely agree with the 16/24 argument, but I think that, sometimes, we assume that better equipment makes better recordings, without acknowledging the difference made by the skill of the operator.
In my view, the differences between 16/24 are hard to detect, whilst the skill of the operator makes a huge difference. Some of us who remember working with tape, when you had a noise floor you could measure on the VUs and nothing was tracked without a compressor to preserve the s/n ratio without switching in the Dolbys, are quite happy to stick with 16 bit.
Just sayin....
ROG.
I always find these 16/24 discussions amusing. I started out with a Tascam Portastudio 144 in 1979 (4-track/cassette). You want to talk about noise floor? 
I agree with ROG - the gear will not make you a better operator. It will, however, remove a lot of the sonic obstacles that plagued the "good old days".
Regards,
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,021 |
And don't forget that 0 on your digital meters is about 18dB hotter then 0 on an analog desk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,311
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,311 |
Quote:
I can indeed start to hear hiss if I take a recording that I made perhaps 25 dB down in 16 bit, then boost it up 20 dB. Try that experiment for yourself.
Scott.
The first thing I ask myself is - why would someone with your obvious knowledge and experience want to record anything 25db down?
One thing you must remember is that you have a theoretical dynamic range of your digital recording medium, but an actual one based on the noise floor from the inherent noise in the signal chain. If, for example, you put a cheap mic in front of an old Marshall tube amp, your dynamic range is, I think the technical term is "shot-to-hell". Even just a good mic through an expensive pre-amp will have a noise floor higher than the digital medium. The experienced engineer will will know how to minimize these problems and get the best results out of the available gear.
You'll notice that I agreed with the main 16/24 argument in my earlier post. I was just making the point that we encourage people to up-grade more often than we tell them to get some specialized training.
ROG.
Last edited by ROG; 06/08/12 11:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 618
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 618 |
I remember my home studio. I would mix down to a DAT Recorder. This was around 1990? I'd send the audio synced with midi from my Atari ST right to the DAT machine. It took some time to get used to setting levels. Many of my first mixes were full of distortion. What an ugly sound it was. I remember it sounding like blown speakers. I started to use a compressor/limiter to help me keep it even.
Wayne,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Quote:
I remember my home studio. I would mix down to a DAT Recorder. This was around 1990? I'd send the audio synced with midi from my Atari ST right to the DAT machine. It took some time to get used to setting levels. Many of my first mixes were full of distortion. What an ugly sound it was. I remember it sounding like blown speakers. I started to use a compressor/limiter to help me keep it even.
Wayne,
That was the old 16 bit Audio Engine.
Today, all audio recording programs are using the 32 bit engine. No more digital "thwack" from overruns, which is another way of saying digital clipping.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,126
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,126 |
Quote:
... I think I just recognized myself, there!
Actually, I completely agree with the 16/24 argument, but I think that, sometimes, we assume that better equipment makes better recordings, without acknowledging the difference made by the skill of the operator.
In my view, the differences between 16/24 are hard to detect, whilst the skill of the operator makes a huge difference. Some of us who remember working with tape, when you had a noise floor you could measure on the VUs and nothing was tracked without a compressor to preserve the s/n ratio without switching in the Dolbys, are quite happy to stick with 16 bit.
Rog,
Hoping that the analog chops we worked so hard to acquire could be translated to digital audio processing is common to most of us oldsters. 
______________________________________________________________
In Linux, audio information is transmitted from one application to another for special-purpose processing, and the bit depth of the transmitted files can be 32 bit, or 64 bit. Files can even be encoded as 32 or 64 bit floating point.
I had not grasped the significance of this until reading Scott's description of "quantization noise" :
"What 24 bit recording does do is give you a better signal to quanitization noise ratio than lower bit depths.
For every bit depth there is an additional 6 dB of SQNR. You can go off and google and wikipedia this to get the complex math but I'll try to keep it simple here.
Here's the way to think about this. Let's pretend you have a pure sine-wave at a fixed peak-to-peak voltage. Let's pretend that we take this signal and we amplify it so that the the peak-to-peak voltage is the same as the peak-to-peak voltage that the A/D converter can handle. You can quantize this into 16 bits, or 2^16 values, or one of 65,536 possible values. The sine wave will have very tiny little stairstepped voltage values into which the wave is encoded.
Now, let's take the same signal, and quantize it into a 24 bit A/D converter, which has one of 16,777,216 possible values. As a result, the stair-steps are WAY smaller with 24 bit A/D conversion than with 16 bit conversion.
The 'stair-steppy-ness' of the signal is the quantization noise. Yet another way to think about this is to think of the smallest possible signal that can be encoded, a signal so quiet that the A/D converter switches between the lowest possible value at zero and the next highest value. It switches back and forth between 0000000000000000 and 0000000000000001. When those values eventually get sent back to D/A conversion, that twitching between the two values tweaks the output D/A and generates an unintended analog output noise: Quantization noise. (For those of you that know binary formats, and the difference between signed and unsigned stuff - bear with me here, just trying to make a point)
For a 24 bit recording, if we adjust the signal down so that the switching back and forth occurs between 000000000000000000000000 and 000000000000000000000001, the lowest two values, and as it goes back to D/A the tweak is much smaller and hence the quantization noise is much smaller. In fact the quantization noise will be roughly 48 dB lower than the 16 bit quantization noise.
Note - no magic with the dynamic range occurs.
The big benefit to recording with 24 bit recording over 16 bit is that one doesn't really have to worry nearly as much about using the full dynamic range of the A/D converter in order to get a nice signal to quantization noise ratio, and the little stair steps that occur in the digitized data are peanuts in comparison to 16 bit.
In other words, you can be quite a bit less careful about it, and just get on with recording."
Thank you, Scott! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,311
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,311 |
Quote:
In other words, you can be quite a bit less careful about it, and just get on with recording.
Oren.
You don't think that good practice once learnt, is something which becomes second nature? Once we start to tell people it's ok to be careless about one thing, we then have to specify HOW careless and to differentiate between that and the things that DO need attention.
Start of the slippery slope?
ROG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913 |
Quote:
Quote:
I can indeed start to hear hiss if I take a recording that I made perhaps 25 dB down in 16 bit, then boost it up 20 dB. Try that experiment for yourself.
Scott.
The first thing I ask myself is - why would someone with your obvious knowledge and experience want to record anything 25db down?
One thing you must remember is that you have a theoretical dynamic range of your digital recording medium, but an actual one based on the noise floor from the inherent noise in the signal chain. If, for example, you put a cheap mic in front of an old Marshall tube amp, your dynamic range is, I think the technical term is "shot-to-hell". Even just a good mic through an expensive pre-amp will have a noise floor higher than the digital medium. The experienced engineer will will know how to minimize these problems and get the best results out of the available gear.
You'll notice that I agreed with the main 16/24 argument in my earlier post. I was just making the point that we encourage people to up-grade more often than we tell them to get some specialized training.
ROG.
Rog,
It's not that I make recording at low levels a matter of practice, but allowing plenty of room does make for less hassles during mixing, not having to apply attenuation in the box to each track, so that when I sum the tracks, I'm not summing to something that's overdriving.
It's just a matter of convenience, I suppose. When I think back to when I had only 16 bit available, I spent a lot of time worrying about maximizing the A/D for each recorded track, and then dialing down from there inside the box.
I do almost no worry of that now and just get on with recording the next track and on to mixing. It's been a very rare occurrence when my songs have summed to the point where I have to go in and adjust gains of individual tracks down - and my 2 channel mixdowns sound very clean.
That wasn't the case in my previous 16 bit life.
I will say that my mixdown 'process' is much less structured than most here, as I don't really have a mixer paradigm in the DAW that I use and I'm fine with it being that way.
Hopefully this is making sense.
-Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,250 |
This has been a very informative thread.
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,311
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,311 |
Scott.
Forgive me if I appeared to be critical of your recording technique. In threads like this, I tend to court controversy, which is a character flaw I find difficult to throw off!
At the end of the day. it's the final mix which we're judged on, not the way we got there.
I learnt my recording in the 60s and 70s, when attention to detail such as levels throughout the signal chain was essential, bearing in mind the equipment we had. Old habits die hard. I have to say, though, there's no way I would want to go back to tape and enormous mixers with no automation.
BTW, if you like maths, which you seem to have a good grasp of, try factoring in the fact that quantization noise is frequency sensitive - it gets scary!
ROG.
Last edited by ROG; 06/09/12 02:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,913 |
Rog,
No harm no foul. Your question was valid. Please understand that I still care about gain staging and so forth and I do still use most of the A/D available range when I record - I just worry less about it now. It used to make a difference. Now, with the limited time I have for this hobby, I spend less time worrying about it and it's none for the worse as a result.
Regarding maths, I learned this stuff about 10-12 years ago in the EE-638 Digital Signal Processing class at Purdue University. I was the only mechanical engineer in the course. The professor was Michael Zoltowski - great guy who knows a shed load of information about DSP. His specialty is spread spectrum communications. I bugged him a great deal with my questions about applications to audio for music purposes.
My favorite moment in the class was the exercise we went through to show how sending this stair-stepped digitized signal through the D/A filter actually DOES result in a smoothed analog signal (up to a certain frequency) through the superposition of each bit's impulse response through the D/A filter stage.
That was an eye opener for me.
Last edited by rockstar_not; 06/09/12 07:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,126
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,126 |
Quote:
You don't think that good practice once learnt, is something which becomes second nature? Once we start to tell people it's ok to be careless about one thing, we then have to specify HOW careless and to differentiate between that and the things that DO need attention.
Start of the slippery slope?
ROG,
Music as art has intrigued me, and the science of music is fascinating, but the craft of making music - from composition to performance to recording to post production - is what really puts the frost on my pumpkin.
In that context, the care with which a craftsperson approaches an audio project is paramount; the defining quality of the experience, for me. (not that you'ld automatically know that from some of the doo-doo I've generated - but we're all entitled to our mistakes... )
So "yes" to good practice as second nature, and "no" to slippery slopes, analog or digital! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update Your PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 Today!
The Newest RealBand 2024 Update is Here!
The newest RealBand 2024 Build 5 update is now available!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
This free update is available to all RealBand 2024 users. To learn more about this update and download it, head to www.pgmusic.com/support.realband.htm#20245
The Band-in-a-Box® Flash Drive Backup Option
Today (April 5) is National Flash Drive Day!
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows® Today!
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows for free with build 1111!
With this update, there's more control when saving images from the Print Preview window, we've added defaults to the MultiPicker for sorting and font size, updated printing options, updated RealTracks and other content, and addressed user-reported issues with the StylePicker, MIDI Soloists, key signature changes, and more!
Learn more about this free update for Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows at www.pgmusic.com/support_windowsupdates.htm#1111
Band-in-a-Box® 2024 Review: 4.75 out of 5 Stars!
If you're looking for a in-depth review of the newest Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows version, you'll definitely find it with Sound-Guy's latest review, Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows Review: Incredible new capabilities to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs.
A few excerpts:
"The Tracks view is possibly the single most powerful addition in 2024 and opens up a new way to edit and generate accompaniments. Combined with the new MultiPicker Library Window, it makes BIAB nearly perfect as an 'intelligent' composer/arranger program."
"MIDI SuperTracks partial generation showing six variations – each time the section is generated it can be instantly auditioned, re-generated or backed out to a previous generation – and you can do this with any track type. This is MAJOR! This takes musical experimentation and honing an arrangement to a new level, and faster than ever."
"Band in a Box continues to be an expansive musical tool-set for both novice and experienced musicians to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs, as well as an extensive educational resource. It is huge, with hundreds of functions, more than any one person is likely to ever use. Yet, so is any DAW that I have used. BIAB can do some things that no DAW does, and this year BIAB has more DAW-like functions than ever."
Convenient Ways to Listen to Band-in-a-Box® Songs Created by Program Users!
The User Showcase Forum is an excellent place to share your Band-in-a-Box® songs and listen to songs other program users are creating!
There are other places you can listen to these songs too! Visit our User Showcase page to sort by genre, artist (forum name), song title, and date - each listing will direct you to the forum post for that song.
If you'd rather listen to these songs in one place, head to our Band-in-a-Box® Radio, where you'll have the option to select the genre playlist for your listening pleasure. This page has SoundCloud built in, so it won't redirect you. We've also added the link to the Artists SoundCloud page here, and a link to their forum post.
We hope you find some inspiration from this amazing collection of User Showcase Songs!
Congratulations to the 2023 User Showcase Award Winners!
We've just announced the 2023 User Showcase Award Winners!
There are 45 winners, each receiving a Band-in-a-Box 2024 UltraPAK! Read the official announcement to see if you've won.
Our User Showcase Forum receives more than 50 posts per day, with people sharing their Band-in-a-Box songs and providing feedback for other songs posted.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums66
Topics81,577
Posts734,594
Members38,497
| |
Most Online2,537
Jan 19th, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean