Is there a sound problem on mixdown with FL Studio or not?

[Carbonboy]

Guys, i think you're talking different things here.

Presonus said about 64-bit processing - that is ENTIRELY different from 16/24/whatever-bit recording and then again it's ENTIRELY different from 16/24/whatever-bit mixdown.

Anyone (even your mom) can hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recorded material

Stop. No they can't.

I have yet to find any replicated study that people can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit anything (recording or mixdown). See... http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/a ... _sampling/

Nearly every time I have seen people compare 16 vs 24 bit something in this industry they are in fact comparing separate pieces of gear. It's differences in analog circuitry or AD/DA converters they are hearing not the bit depth.

IF you are to compare 16 to 24 bit, it must come from and be tested on same equipment.

This is worth a serious read and watch the video at the bottom

http://flstudio.image-line.com/help/html/app_audio.htm



Carb.

[Burillo]

Stop. No they can't.

I have yet to find any replicated study that people can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit anything (recording or mixdown). See... http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/a ... _sampling/

Nearly every time I have seen people compare 16 vs 24 bit something in this industry they are in fact comparing separate pieces of gear. It's differences in analog circuitry or AD/DA converters they are hearing not the bit depth.

IF you are to compare 16 to 24 bit, it must come from and be tested on same equipment.

This is worth a serious read and watch the video at the bottom

http://flstudio.image-line.com/help/html/app_audio.htm



Carb.

This thing was once on my list of "things to find out" because my hard drive wasn't that big and i wanted to know what are the most efficient settings to preserve maximum quality and minimum size of recorded material. I quickly found out that using FLAC is the way to go (i am using REAPER now which can perfectly record to FLAC) and that even 48KHz seems to be an overkill (i heard no difference) but with 16-bit vs 24-bit the difference was subtle (i was probably exaggerating when i said about your mum) but it was there. Maybe i'm wrong and it's a placebo effect (of having theoretically more dynamic range and thus having "better" quality) but it wasn't some kind of test of equipments - i did that with my own trusty M-Audio Firewire Solo just to know what should i use for recording purposes, not to find out what everybody else thinks about this subject.

[STML]

Headroom has nothing to do with it at all nor does intersample peaks and if you get a craptastic sound from 16 bit recording chances are high, it won't be any better at 24 bit<snip>

No, I agree with you. If you are going to get a craptastic sound out of 16 bits, You will probably get the same craptastic sound out of 24 bits, because you don't understand what the increased bit depth will do for you...

[Burillo]

i will go off topic now but since this subject was brought up...

i've watched the Audio Myths Workshop - brilliant video, had a good laugh and learned lots of stuff i was suspecting already

however, i have a question. It's clear that even multiple AD-DA conversions from a cheap SoundBlaster don't impact audio that much. However, i often deal with VST amp simulation, occasionally very high gain stuff. These levels of gain bring up any low-volume crap that is out there in the sound. I can't test it right now but i remember 16-bit recording being a tad more noisy than 24-bit. Did i hear things or can it actually happen?

[mauseoleum]

i will go off topic now but since this subject was brought up...

i've watched the Audio Myths Workshop - brilliant video, had a good laugh and learned lots of stuff i was suspecting already

however, i have a question. It's clear that even multiple AD-DA conversions from a cheap SoundBlaster don't impact audio that much. However, i often deal with VST amp simulation, occasionally very high gain stuff. These levels of gain bring up any low-volume crap that is out there in the sound. I can't test it right now but i remember 16-bit recording being a tad more noisy than 24-bit. Did i hear things or can it actually happen?

could be:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 25#4235225

[crimsonwarlock]

16 bits is more than adequate for recording.
Yes, recording too. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous.

This is not correct (so yes, I claim otherwise). Only if you are doing no processing whatsoever on the recorded material and only mix levels (i.e. summing) then I agree. But in most (I would say 'every') circumstances there is processing involved. And in that case any higher resolution will give you better end results.

Now you are going to want to respond (I suspect ) by saying that the plugins that do the processing are using a higher bit-count internally. However, if your source material is of a lower resolution, upsampling inside the plugin will NOT give you higher resolution but only a higher bit-count. The same value is simply represented by more bits but NOT getting more defined in some magical way.

So to put it in one sentence: 16-bit 'resolution' send into an effect that does 64-bit processing still gives you 16-bit resolution (represented in 64 bits).

[jupiter8]

16 bits is more than adequate for recording.
Yes, recording too. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous.

This is not correct (so yes, I claim otherwise). Only if you are doing no processing whatsoever on the recorded material and only mix levels (i.e. summing) then I agree. But in most (I would say 'every') circumstances there is processing involved. And in that case any higher resolution will give you better end results.

Now you are going to want to respond (I suspect ) by saying that the plugins that do the processing are using a higher bit-count internally. However, if your source material is of a lower resolution, upsampling inside the plugin will NOT give you higher resolution but only a higher bit-count. The same value is simply represented by more bits but NOT getting more defined in some magical way.

So to put it in one sentence: 16-bit 'resolution' send into an effect that does 64-bit processing still gives you 16-bit resolution (represented in 64 bits).

I know that. Have you recorded in 16 bits ? The result is more than adequate and the advantage by going to 24 is slim at best. Obviously depending on genre,if i were to record a classical orchestra with a stereo mic i'd go for 24 bits as well but for a rack band or a tarnce anthem 16 is by far enough if you know what you're doing. 24 buys you a lot of headroom so you don't have to worry much about levels but it won't give you much quality difference unless you're completely useless.

You make it sound like there's a world of difference,like recording to 16 bits would be the equivalent of an old portastudio or something.It is not. I had a 16 bit Protools system and i thought it sounded marvelous,way better than the tape deck it replaced. A Fostex B16 not the best of tape machines but still.

I don't really recommend 16 bits as there is little point but to claim it is useless is simply dead wrong.

[crimsonwarlock]

I know that. Have you recorded in 16 bits ? The result is more than adequate and the advantage by going to 24 is slim at best. Obviously depending on genre,if i were to record a classical orchestra with a stereo mic i'd go for 24 bits as well but for a rack band or a tarnce anthem 16 is by far enough if you know what you're doing. 24 buys you a lot of headroom so you don't have to worry much about levels but it won't give you much quality difference unless you're completely useless.

You are still missing the point: it has nothing to do with the quality of the recorded material. I already said that if you do ONLY mixing levels then you are correct.

The point (again) is that the result that you get OUT of a processing plugin (let's say a reverb) is depending on the 'quality' of the incoming signal. If your recorded material is 16-bit then the reverb is calculated based on 16 bits of information. Anything you can give to that reverb to do a better (higher resolution) calculation is giving you a better reverb based on your 'recorded' material.

The whole concept of using higher resolutions for calculating stuff and afterwards downsampling to a lower resolution is a very well known and documented fact that is not only common sense in music production but in a whole lot of other technological areas (graphics being a well known and obvious one).

[jupiter8]

To me it sounds like your talking from a strictly theoretical view without having actually tried it.

I fully understand the theory behind it but i have also tried it in real life and it is far from as bad as some of you would have it. In fact there's almost no difference at all if you know what you're doing.

[trimph1]

Still have to think that the 'average' listener is not going to be asking himself whether it was 16 bit or 24 bit processing that was done. All this ends up being theoretical anyhow.

[jmh]

And as long as the discussion isn't about the average listeners, raising that "point" is... pointless.

It's one of the silly cards people always have to play even though it doesn't belong in the game. Context, what a bitch.

[crimsonwarlock]

In fact there's almost no difference at all if you know what you're doing.

I think that should read 'if you DON'T know what you're doing'... because if you DO know what you're doing then it actually does make a difference.

Let's put it this way: if you send in your mix to a mastering house (I'd say those guys DO know what they are doing) and propose to deliver your mix in 16-bit I'm pretty sure they'll advice against it

... although some will gladly take your money

[jupiter8]

Let's put it this way: if you send in your mix to a mastering house (I'd say those guys DO know what they are doing) and propose to deliver your mix in 16-bit I'm pretty sure they'll advice against it

Now that wasn't what we're discussing here now, was it ? Even so, in that scenario i'd say the differences would be minuscule still. If you know what you're doing that is.

I'm not arguing 24 bits is useless,i'm arguing: some of you would have it,it's close to unusable (16 bits) which it isn't. With a little care it's a perfectly fine format.

Many fine albums are recorded on 16 bits: Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits, Arrival by Abba, Welcome to the Pleasuredome by Frankie goes to Hollywood.

[crimsonwarlock]

Let's put it this way: if you send in your mix to a mastering house (I'd say those guys DO know what they are doing) and propose to deliver your mix in 16-bit I'm pretty sure they'll advice against it

Now that wasn't what we're discussing here now, was it ?

Yes it is... my point was, and still is, that if you are going to process your audio, then more resolution is something you want.

There is no difference between:

1. your recorded audio going into a mixing/production system THAT DOES PROCESSING...

or:

2. your mixed down audio going into a mastering house THAT DOES PROCESSING.

In both cases having better resolution going in before the processing is something that is pretty useful. I'll meet you halfway by saying it's not mandatory, but it's definitely something you want if you are aiming for a quality production.

[Nokenoku]

I'm with jupiter8 on the bit-topic.
I'd never record in 16bit, because there's no reason and I like to be on the safe side.

But really, the difference is very small .. in most cases absolutely inaudible even after further processing. It's not like a 16bit recording would immediatly sound bad .. in most cases it will sound exactly like as it would in 24bit.