16 bit and 24 bit audio

G

Gorilla King

Well-known member
How much of a difference is there really between these two? I'm looking at the Marantz 660 and 671 and I'm trying to determine if it's worth the extra 500 to be able to record 24 bit.
 
You'll never deliver in that form (ok, well maybe on SACD or DVDA), but 24-bit is very useful for high res acquisition, mixing, fx, and editing. Then, as a final step, dithering down to 16-bit or AC3, etc. There's also some advantage from a dynamic range perspective at acquisition, but there's also a whole lot more to discuss on this topic but I'll leave my comments at that for now. Think of it this way, there is a reason why music studios record, edit, and master at higher than 16-bit/48kHz, but that's not to say that 16-bit can't sound fantastic. However, the more editing, fx, fades, eq, compression you do at 16-bit, the more quantization noise comes into play from truncation (talking audiofile quality here). Is 24-bit worth it? Is it worth the larger files sizes? The added workflow steps? That's going to be a personal choice. 16-bit is perfectly acceptable for most applications, but there are advantages to 24-bit that might be worth the extra PITA.
 
This is going to be a dumb question but what do they typically record hollywood films in? Let's say I wanted to do some sound effects work ala Ben Burt.
 
My take on things is that 24 bit really doesn't add that much hassle/file size compared to the higher sample rates. I see no reason not to go 24 bit with a dither at the end down to 16 bit. Google some examples of what a good dither can do - quite amazing.

The big advantage to 24 bit in my mind is that you a 24 bit file that has a sound at -48db has the same amount of information that a full scale 16 bit file has. That's an incredible amount of headroom. Record with your peaks around -20 to -15, have plenty of headroom for unexpected loud sounds, and have great quality audio to work with in post. No more riding the gain to keep your audio right near the peaks while recording.

Here's the catch - you need to have a recorder than isn't noisy as all hell. It doesn't matter if your recorder has 144db of dynamic range if it's noise floor is -50db. Some of the cheap recorders have noisy analog input stages. Nicer models like a Deva or a Sound Devices recorder will deliver.

Read up on the boards, but I think with the Marantz you might as well go with the 16 bit model. I could be wrong, and you might be able to take advantage of the 24 bit model with an external pre.

RE: the 2nd question - I don't know what they are recorded with, but I'm sure the big guys use the best equipment they can get, i.e. 24 bit.
 
The 660 v 671 has a lot of differences besides 24 v 16. The preamps on the 660 are famous for being quite noisy. Try and take both for a test drive to see if the difference is important to you.

The "big guys" use a variety of recording tools. While I believe Ben Burtt is not really in the field anymore, the SW sound crew probably used more then one type of recorder for F/X work. Of more recent movies, I know King Kong bought a ton of 722 for their F/X crew (well a ton being at least 4). But sound f/x and location dialog are two very different jobs with different tools needed for them...with some crossover.

For a list of most of the recorders used on "Hollywood films" go to http://coffeysound.com/ and check out the digital recoder page. Dave Fisk could probably tell you which one is most popular with what application. They got the low end and high end all covered there. Also, don't forget, DAT is not entirely dead...yet. Plenty of big films made today are still on DAT but no one is buying them new anymore.

If you are looking for straight up opinions on which to get...the 671 is worth the extra cash but once you are at that price point you mind as well get the HD-P2 and get yourself some TC.

IMHO
 
What I'd really like is a Sound Devices 702, but man.....it's a bit steep for me right now unless I get some pretty decent funding on this movie.
 
Ahh yeah, I was confusing the 660 with the 670 - the 670 and 671 are basically the same thing but 24/16 bit, right?

I've heard some snazzy things about the HD-P2. I thinks that's a great suggestion.
 
i started out with the hd-p2 and i have to say i was serously disappointed.

it felt like a toy.

if you want to work out of a bag its a real pain because half of the controls are on the top where you won't be able to see or get to in a bag.

i wound up with the 744t and i'm VERY happy with it.

the 702 and 702t have since come out and either one of those would be a huge improvement over the hd-p2 imho.

matthew
 
matthewd5 said:
it felt like a toy.
Click to expand...

All the sub-Sound Device recorders have that "toy" feeling to me. The FR-2, R-4, all of the Marantz offerings, etc have these plastic, cheap design to them. The quality user interface and rugged design is one of those things you pay for by moving up to the higher end recorders (not to mention the good customer service).

Still for the price, the HD-P2 offers impressive features. I would still spend the extra cash on the SD 700 recorders but to those on a tighter budget...well we all have to make compremises.

Did the performance of the HD-P2 (beyond the control layout and plastic body) have any major, or minor, shortcomings, Matthew?

(it's a Tascam HD-P2, Mr. King)

Cheers
 
the biggest problem i had with the tascam hd-p2 was that it didn't do xlr line inputs.

its shows mic/line on the actual case but in fact you can only do line input on the rca jacks.

the next big thing is the fact that so many of the controls are not reachable when your working out of a bag.

i'm just not sure who their target market is? people recording simple things at a table the way they would have used a tape recorder 10 years ago?

matthew
 
Most FX for big features were recorded at 16 bit when DAT was king. Now 24 bit is the norm and many are recording at 96, though I didn't hear that much difference. For FX we are planning to pitch down 96 is a plus. Randy Thom, who is still in the biz, used a lot of 96K recordings for Harry Potter 4. They did that mostly so it could be pitched down smoothly. Great recordings are more about the recordist than the box though so get a recorder and record. Get the best you can afford and upgrade when you can, but the art of recording is just that an art. There are some GREAT surf and waves recordings that are still prized today that were recorded on Cassette with a sony stereo mic. There are plenty of crappy 96/25 recordings out there.

SK
 
I suppose I'd just really like to get equipment that'll last. I know audio stuff holds up over the years far better than video so thats why I'm considering making such a sunstantial investment here.
 
i guess that is the way to look at this question.

the hd-p2 didn't feel like an investment.

my sd302 felt like a piece of engineered art when i first opened it up and going from the hd-p2 to the 722 was a huge leap.

then i kicked myself for not getting timecode and i made a really painful leap from the 722 to the 744t.

it wasn't the best feeling when the 702 and 702t models were announced but i love the option of having both hard disk and compact flash.

now i'm thinking of getting a 442 so then i can dump all 4 channels directly to the 744t and still feed out two mixed channels to a camera.

matthew
 
I think they want there DAP1 market. FX recordists have slightly diferent criteria for recorders because of the need to be very portable and because you have more controle over when you need to record. A lot of FX rigs would scare the **** out of production recordists because of their "un reliability". It's not that they are actually unreliable but they are not put together with the needs of production in mind.

Anyway, I did not like the DAP1 but it was a very common FX recorder and it held up pretty well. It was plasticy and had some hard to get to controls and compleatly crappy battery and noisey preamps. For FX most people had gone to some kind of external battery and seperate preamp. The Sony walkman DAT was also a comon FX recorder. Often paired with a MicPre and A/D converter.
So I think the HDP2 will be fine in that market and with TC (though limited) it will get more production use than the DAP1 did. Then there are all those other folks who used to use the DAP1. Musicians, theatre sound designers etc. THe HDP2 is a very good fit for a lot of them, and at $1600 less than the 722 it's an easy choice for a lot of folks. And the fact that it runs off AA batteries is actually a big plus for many people, FX recordists amoung them. THe camcorder batteries that the SD box uses can't be picked up (charged) in a store let alone a 7-11 in the middle of nowhere, and they cand be charged with out some power scource that may not be available in some remote locals either.
SD are great boxes but there pluses and minuses to all the recorders on the market right now.
SK





matthewd5 said:
the biggest problem i had with the tascam hd-p2 was that it didn't do xlr line inputs.

its shows mic/line on the actual case but in fact you can only do line input on the rca jacks.

the next big thing is the fact that so many of the controls are not reachable when your working out of a bag.

i'm just not sure who their target market is? people recording simple things at a table the way they would have used a tape recorder 10 years ago?

matthew
Click to expand...
 
well on batteries you can do an awful lot with AA packs and one of the hirose plugs.

i bought a couple of the hirose plugs and just in case of an emergency i can power my sd 302 and 744t off of AA's

gotham sound makes great custom cables and one of the cables i had them make me is a Y to go from one hirose power to two so i can run the 302 and 744t off of the same np-1 battery without a fancy battery distribution system.

the 744t has a wonderful battery level indicator and the 302 has a pretty good led indicator.

as it happened i had 3 or 4 of the really large sony lithium cam-corder batteries along with a nice charger that shows you how long till full etc.

matthew
 
In the audience taping community we hack battery packs all of the time. One favorite method is to use these cheap 5600mah rechargeable "DVD Batteries". Sometimes you need to take them down from 9v to 5v, and you often need to make your own cables. As an example, I can power my R4 recorder running mic-in with phantom on all four channels for well over 6 hours nonstop (use it to record music) using one of these $25 batteries and an "adaptaplug" from ratshack. The adaptaplug is basically a cable that you can buy different connectors in different sizes for both sides. You just plug in the right fittings, and you can flip tip/ring polarity just by rotating the plug, and you're off and running (if you can take 9v). I can run this same battery into my FP24 (aka SD MixPre) with a different hacked cable, and I can run it for ridiculous amounts of time.
 
True and this was how I was powering my old DAT. But it's really nice to not have to haul around more stuff and ify connectors. THe ify connectors would not be the SD ones but the FR2 and the old DAP1 external battery packs were connected to the rather fragile external power jacks on those boxes.
But I'm not knocking the 722, it was my dream machine. Having worked with it a bit I have some quibbles and I like the way the 671 operates. But if I had to choose it would be the SD box every day, on support alone. They actually emailed me about specific issues I had after reading a post of mine on another site. I don't have any big issues with them just a number of little ones, no show stoppers.
But anyway I was responding to your who would buy this box question.

SK
 
Think i'm gonna do my first shoot on 24-Bit this weekend. always just thought i'd do 48, 16 because thats what i've always done, but if I go 24 then nobody can be too upset with me for recording too quiet.. useful for skeleton crew situations too where I have to hold the boom and cant reach the faders, just give myself a bit more headroom!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top