This IS the Avid L2: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks are panning the 4K push

Add a compressor/limiter effect to your 16-bit audio. For good measure add some EQ with some presence boost. The degradation versus doing the same with 24-bit audio is easily audible. Among professional mixers this is not even debatable. I assume the cause is quantization error in the boosted low-level signals.

Maybe it's sort of like zooming into or boosting the brightness of a dark area of the picture; you're going to see blocks that were not visible before. Which is why it's better to shoot at 4k if you're going to manipulate the picture in post.

I can ask some of my audio engineer friends to give me a thorough explanation, but with my Genelec monitors it's the difference between the effects sounding good and sounding unacceptable. I don't think you need to hear beyond 9k to hear this.

-- Mark Block

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Edit B" <bouke@...> wrote:
>
> > MB I wouldn't ever add an audio filter and render at 16 bits, even if the source was 16 bits
>
> Please enlighten me.
> I'm deaf beyond 9Khz, but i concider myself a decent tech (with a bit of understanding of uncompressed sound. I can make a sound with a HEX editor alone...)
> 24 bits means 3 bytes of volume data PER SAMPLE.
> This means, increasing the bit depth you increase the dynamic range of your soundfile. But it has nothing to do with the 'roundness/softness/sparklingness' of the sound.
> With 24 bits, the only reason for a gain knob on the sound recorder is to do a 'pre-level' for post.
> The dynamic range is so high there is no technical reason to adjust it if the recording level does not clip before the mic itself will overload.
>
> Now please explain me what can go wrong with a normal 16 bits recording if you add an effect and render to 16 bits, that would not happen in 24 bits
> (and yes, the next step will be a double blind listening test, bets are open.)
>
>
> Bouke
>
> VideoToolShed
> van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
> 6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
> +31 24 3553311
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MarkB
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:11 PM
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks are panning the 4K push
>
>
>
> You're asking editors about sound quality? ;)
>
> Although we might not work at 96k, I assume many have changed from 16-bit to 24-bit. 16 bits might be adequate for final delivery, but it's audibly inferior for processing and mixing. I wouldn't ever add an audio filter and render at 16 bits, even if the source was 16 bits. Many location recordings are done at 96k; sound designers and mixing engineers routinely work at 24/96 or higher.
>
> Assuming all the mixing (and some of the recording) is done at higher res, a 16/48 down-conversion for final delivery will be audibly indistinguishable from a 24/192 source to most people on most systems. But a good recording engineer in a good studio will certainly hear the difference after down-converting.
>
> In that respect, it's very much like 4k vs. HD.
>
> Take care -- Mark Block
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Job ter Burg (L2B)" <Job_L2@> wrote:
> >
> > Like Super Audio-CD? Any of you working with 96KHz or 192KHz audio? Was MP3 better than the CD?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>