and 24bit or 16bit recording
Hi all,
I'm thinking of buying a stand-alone recorder and have my eyes on a Boss BR900CD, and I just wanted to ask a couple of Q's about recording at different bit rates. I have also been using n-Track for several years and although I want to record on a stand-alone unit I still intend to n-Track for editing audio.
The reason for wanting a stand-alone unit is that, although I have a reasonable PC (2.9GHz, not dual core; 512k RAM), it doesn't always perform well when running several effects at once… ie the usual PC glitches, CPU usage going up dramatically etc. With a Boss recorder I can use an effect on the input signal, and have several other track insert effects and loop effects running also, all with out glitches or system slow downs. After using a PC for ages I've finally given in to the merits of a stand-alone studio.
The thing I'm wondering then is, as the Boss BR900CD records at 16 bits, whether am I doing myself a disservice by not recording at 24 bits into a PC. I know this issue has been discussed before at length, but the situation with a Boss recorder is not quite as straightforward as this though. The Boss actually uses a 24 bit D/A converter, it processes input effects (as well as a compressor and noise gate) at 24 bits, before finally dithering down to 16 bits for storage of audio data. Subsequent mixing and mastering on the Boss recorder is done using the 16 bit data (DSP at 24 bit resolution), and if I transferred the recorded files to a PC then the same would apply (though DSP would be processed at 32 bits in n-Track).
I am aware that storage of audio data at 16 bits (before further processing takes place) is not ideal, however ignoring this… is the fact that the Boss recorder captures and processes the input at 24 bits (before converting to 16 bit) still worthwhile in regards to capturing a good signal, with low noise etc? Or should I really be going for proper 24 bit recording the whole way?
Sorry about the rambling post… There are a couple of models by Zoom which also record the same way as the Boss (Zoom HD8 and HD16), and presumably the same would apply. I could actually spend more money and buy a 24 bit stand-alone recorder, but I just don't want to spend so much money… and if capturing and processing at 24 bit before converting to 16 bit as above is satisfactory then I'd be happy to get the Boss. (The BR900CD also uses compact flash cards, which appeals to me as there's no hard-drive that might malfunction etc).
Cheers
J.W.
As you said, therre is a lot of discussion on this. As best I have been able to determine, the higher bit rate increases the “headroom” you can record more information at a higher volume without clipping. Most, if not all, editing software uses something higher than a 16 bit rate and then takes it back to the bit rate that it was to start ( record at 24 it returns it to 24).
All-in-all it probably does not matter much - 16 or 24. However, the industruy seems to be heading to a 24 bit standard so if you are doing any professional recording that might become an issue. But if you are not recording an orchastra, it probably will not matter much. There, Might be a problem if the sound gets “overprocessed” The clock speeds of different recording devices Might be off enough that after changing the bit rate a few times it started to sound "off."
So, my short answer - mix with the machjine you recorded with if at all possible.
I’m interested to see what other, perhaps, better informed folks have to say. I sure don’t begin to know it all!
Bax
I use an ADAT HD24 running 24 bit 48K resolution for recording. Then DL the tracks to the PC for editing.
Hi JW:
That’s a nice thoughtful post…
There may be already several n-Trackers who post here on the Board that are approaching their audio/creativity in the same manner as you are contemplating.
I believe the term used is Turn Key and/or what you describe as “Stand Alone” Tracking-and-Recording…
There are several Big Names that have this hardware on the market…
It ranges from RADAR down to and including standard names like Boss and Zoom and every name in-between like Mackie and Akai and just about every Audio Brand Name you can think of…
The RADAR Turnkey system is considered at the top of the list of Stand Alone hardware…
It appears to be the system most used by the BIG GUYS in North America and the rest of the World, for that matter…
It’s a Company centered on the west coast, in British Columbia, Canada…
I was “That Close” to investing in a 16-track RADAR Setup…
I’m very close to going down that path…
However, I’ve run into an issue I call “Tracker’s Block”… (Shame-On-Me)…
If I were going to invest in a Turn-Key Tracking setup I’d think very seriously toward getting a stand alone setup that would create 24-bit resolution files…
AND at least 96 khz. Sample Rate…
maybe 196 khz…
Teac…
is a go9od place to start…
These Stand Alone units should have the ability to create/convert their audio files to .wav files… Some of these units have a propitiatory file system that don’t allow file conversion to other audio file extensions… One needs to be careful not to get into a system that doesn’t allow you to convert your creativity to other file extensions…
I’d just jump at the idea to create audio files with a system like that and then have the choice to EDIT-and-MIX In-or-Out-of the Box…
Bill…
p.s.
I hear you Bax3…
There are many “Audio Ears” out there that will tell you that every time you render a Digital Audio File you inject another Generation Factor into your audio file…
(The same as if you were using Tape)…
Having said that…
Start with the greatest resolution Digital Audio file you can create…
[EDIT]
Hi Tom Hicks:
What a great topic to Chin-Wag… About…
Hi Bax, thanks for your reply.
I think though, my question was a bit confused in coming across…so to clarify…
The Boss records at 16 bits, although we probably all agree it’s better to record at 24 bits. However the Boss' D/A converter actually captures at 24 bits, does some processing eg noise gate, compressor etc (at 24 bits), then converts down to 16 bits.
The question is: is the capturing at 24 bits and then converting to 16 bits reasonably acceptable as regards final sound quality? I’m thinking that what the Boss does is an acceptable middle ground between capturing+recording at 16 bits, and capturing+recording at 24 bits. Ideally nearer the latter.
It might however not be an acceptable middle ground, and may be not much better than capturing+recording at 16 bits. I’d be interested then in people’s opinions on this. There must be a reason though why Boss chooses to capture the audio at 24 bits…?
Many thanks
J.W.
Thanks the other guys who replied.
You know, J.W>, the reason could be something as odd as that the 24 bit converters were cheaper for them, or something. Might not be an intentional design feature. I mean, why have 24 bit converters and then chop it down to 16 bits? Seems kind of silly.
Hi TomS. I'm not so sure they're cutting costs in having 24 bit input. Boss have been using 24 bit D/A converters with their recorders for around 8 years or so, Zoom also do the same thing with their HD8 and HD16 recorders. Though I do think they've chosen to record at 16 bits partly because it saves on storage space and maybe(?) because there may not be enough processing power to handle 24 bits recording and playback. In the future though perhaps all cheap multitrackers will record at 24 bits.
So why capture at 24 bits… maybe because the input DSP is also done at 24 bits, and therefore once conversion and dithering down to 16 bits is done, then this may be best way to get a good, cleanly processed signal recorded to 16 bits, than if it recorded at 16 bits in the first place. At least this is what I'm telling myself…
Also, even the more expensive Boss BR1200CD and BR1600CD seem to do exactly then same as above. Anyway I've still not decided what multitracker to buy though, as mentioned I'm not keen on blowing a lot of cash on a large 24 bit recorder.
I thhink the only reason we end up with 16 bit is because it is what audio CDs use.
The Musicians Fiend has the BOSS BR900CD for $699 and the Tascam 2488mkII for $799. 24 tracks, record 8 simultaneously if desired, 24 bit recording etc… For a hunnert bucks more, I’d grab the Tascam even though it’s a bit larger. Some years ago, I bought a Tascam 788 Digital Portastudio and loved it. Then I decided I needed more tracks and more I/O. I would have been better off to have bought a more capable unit first time. I wound up going PC based and now the Tascam is an expensive paper weight in my dad’s little workshop. He says he’ll get around to using it “someday”.
Just by two denari…
D
Eyup!
From a purely practical point of view I would not choose the dedicated tracker route. The pace of change of software and hardware will inevitably mean redundancy in a very short time. Using software is the safest option as software can much more easily be installed on your existing platform. If I had several hundred Dollars to invest, I would look at good quality soundcards and software for my existing pc, rather than buy a complete hardware solution which will be obsolescent in months, rather than years.
Steve
P.S. this is the most bizarre emoticon I have ever seen 
I have no idea what on earth it’s supposed to mean.
I can address this from a couple of different perspectives.
First, I don’t think the 16 bit issue is going to make much difference in the final sound of your recordings. I know that is heresy but I used to record in 16 bits and when I went to 24 bits I honestly didn’t hear much of an improvement. I did a test of recording tracks at 16 and 24 bits in nTrack and I couldn’t hear any difference at all if they were recorded pretty hot.
The big deal about 24 bits is that you can record at a lot lower levels and still have a good S/N ratio. This allows you to drive your preamps much less hard and that factor can make the biggest difference in sound. I haven’t used the Boss unit but I’m going to assume that the preamps and recordings levels are optimized within that unit so this probably won’t be an issue.
The second point is that I agree with Beefy Steve from a technology standpoint. You could build a really fast computer for $800 which would solve your CPU problems. If the Boss will help you out regarding work flow then maybe it’s the way to go. I’m not sure why you are recording with effects on the way in but if that’s a critical component of your work style then I can see going with something like the Boss. Otherwise, it seems a lot more complicated to me to record on one unit and then dump the tracks to a separate platform for mixing.
24 bit recording is also meant to be better when mixing and mastering as you get a more accurate result. But that aside… The Boss units have good amp and speaker modelling for recording guitar, plus also compressors and a noise gate… I’ve tried a friend’s Boss BR-8 in the past and it recorded amazingly well with great guitar sounds. Getting a good guitar sound when recording direct in is something I’ve battled with in the past as I know others sometimes do. I could instead use a POD XT plus a 24 bit USB interface, or maybe a Toneport. I’m not sure if Roland / Edirol / Boss do a USB interface with built in DSP…?
The above is the main reason for favouring Boss. Otherwise, yes I could get a new PC or laptop for $800 or so. I still have doubts though about the performance of computers… eg plugins like Jamstix are very resource hungry and I hear people still have problems with this plugin on high spec computers. You can see why one gets fed up of PC recording at times…!
Thing is, I like the idea of a stand-alone recording unit with real faders and so on, and overaall it seems a more simplistic and easier way to record. Though I haven’t turned my back on PC recording - I’d still sometimes want to do some editing on the PC, but would mainly aim to record and mix on the seprate unit.
If only Boss recorders worked at 24 bit… NAMM starts tomorrow, perhaps new Boss models are on the horizon…!!
FWIW, J.W. that’s how I got started with n-Track. I tracked everything with the aforementioned 788 and exported the 24/44.1 wave files to n-Track for editing and mixing. At the time I only had a crappy onboard soundcard but it worked well enough for a newbie. As I learned more and honed my skills a bit, I wanted better fidelity on the computer side and bought an EMU 1820M along with some nice nearfield monitors (Event TR8’s). I haven’t looked back since then. Although these days I am much more a Reaper guy, I still have a soft spot for n-Track and big hopes for it’s future.
D
Thanks for your help – think I will stick with PC recording after all.
Beefy Steve - that emoticon means ‘angry’ apparently!