This IS the Avid L2: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks, now 24bits sound

Monday, August 26, 2013

[Avid-L2] Re: More folks, now 24bits sound

Bouke, I'l grant that your skepticism is justified, so I'll try to experiment with it and send you something, and also ask some audio guys.

Since being laid off last year from my long-term staff job, I've been freelancing, so I don't have a project handy that I can consolidate and send you right now. Also, at my staff job we switched to FCP in 2007, so most of those projects are not Avid. But I heard this phenomenon often enough when doing audio processing that I started making all my sequences with 24-bit audio some time ago.

BTW, there's a music company that has posted for free some pristine (straight mic to audio file) classical music recorded high res then downconverted. I think it's easy to hear the downconversion on good speakers. But that's another issue. For fun, I recommend checking out the Mozart and Vivaldi samples. Play the various bit/sample rate versions at the native bit and sample rates -- assuming you have software and a DAC that will play 24/192 without a conversion.

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

I do care about audio quality, so I buy high-res downloads on occasion. However, I'd rather listen to a really good recording as an MP3 than a bad recording or bad mix/mastering at 24/192. The quality of the source is more important than 24 bits or high bitrates.

Take care -- Mark Block

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Edit B" <bouke@...> wrote:
>
> Mark,
> Please find a sample and consolidate the project.
> I've got Genelecs too, and would love to hear it.
> We do not disagree that it is possible to lift up problems in low volume 16 bits recordings, but i still fail to understand why this would be less noticable if the output format is 24 bits.
> Granted, if the pipeline of effects involves radical volume changes that is counteracted by the next effect, there is logic.
> But if that is not the case, again, there is absolutely no technical reason in the way uncompressed sound works that can explain the difference.
>
> Also, if you can, do ask a tech guy if he can teach me anything.
>
>
> Bouke
>
> VideoToolShed
> van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
> 6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
> +31 24 3553311
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MarkB
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:10 AM
> Subject: [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]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>