jump to beginning show previous Showing Logic-users Thread 96272 of 105759 show next jump to end

Forum Index | Read LUG: Policy/Rules Messages Threads Digests | Post New Message | Search!

From: "Paul Stephenson" <pauls@pswerks.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 at 3:08:40 PM
Subject: RE: [LUG] bit generations
Message #215193
<quotes fixed by admin> >>>>>>>> I just finished working on a track that consists of 24 bit audio files. I sent it to the guy who is mastering it, but for some technical reason I needed it to be a 16 bit stereo file, so I bounced it without dithering. My thought was that he (the mastering engineer) could apply dithering after he'll do his thing with the eq and dynamics, but he says that you should only apply dithering when you're reducing bit rate and not afterwards. Anybody knows better? ::: ::: ::: Thanks, Aviad >>>>>>>> I would like to hear an answer on this one. I didn't know you could reduce bit depth to 16 bits without dithering. I mean you could truncate but that would be bad... Paul
Viewed 223 times, 1 reply, 5 messages in thread. Reply to this message.
From: Pete Thomas <logic@petethomas.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 at 4:12:44 PM
Subject: [LUG] Re: bit generations
Message #215198
This is a reply to #215193.
Paul Stephenson wrote: > <quotes fixed by admin> > > I just finished working on a track that consists of 24 bit audio files. > I sent it to the guy who is > mastering it, but for some technical reason I needed it to be a 16 bit > stereo file, so I bounced > it without dithering. My thought was that he (the mastering engineer) > could apply dithering > after he'll do his thing with the eq and dynamics, but he says that you > should only apply > dithering when you're reducing bit rate and not afterwards. Anybody > knows better? > ::: ::: ::: > Thanks, > Aviad > > > I would like to hear an answer on this one. I didn't know you could > reduce bit depth to 16 bits without dithering. I mean you could > truncate but that would be bad... Only if you hear it as being bad. However I wouldn't have much faith in a mastering studio that say they must have 16 bit files. Dithering should be the last step, so my gut feeling is he is talking out of his 2bit a***. If he (a) needs 16 bit but (b) then can't do the conversion or (c) give you good advice about it then (d) please go elsewhere for mastering -- Pete Thomas www.petethomas.co.uk Logic Tutorials, Hints, Tips, free Icons, Environments EXS Instruments (donationware) ***Please support my trek in the Andes in aid of APEC*** ***info & sponsorship: http://www.justgiving.com/petethomas***
Viewed 222 times, 2 replies, 5 messages in thread. Reply to this message.
From: "Aviad" <el_tin@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 at 4:49:44 PM
Subject: [LUG] Re: bit generations
Message #215211
This is a reply to #215198.
Thank you so much guys. Please don't shoot my mastering engineer, it was all my fault due to some issues with the file size and my misconceptions about dithering. I'll now find a way to get it to him as 24 bit. ::: ::: ::: Aviad
Viewed 210 times, 0 replies, 5 messages in thread. Reply to this message.
From: "mt100uk" <miketaylor100@mac.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 at 6:09:41 PM
Subject: [LUG] Re: bit generations
Message #215212
This is a reply to #215198.
> > I would like to hear an answer on this one. I didn't know > > you could reduce bit depth to 16 bits without dithering. I > > mean you could truncate but that would be bad... > > Only if you hear it as being bad. > > However I wouldn't have much faith in a mastering studio that > say they must have 16 bit files. Dithering should be the last > step, so my gut feeling is he is talking out of his 2bit a***. Harsh but fair... any type of compression is going to raise the dither-noise floor (dithering uses random noise to toggle the least significant bits and give the impression of more dynamic range) and produce artifact heavy results, bad. Any mastering engineer who uses digital *at all* should know this. Dithering should only be used after the last dsp process. I wouldn't use any mastering engineer who wanted a dithered 16bit (or truncated for that matter!) file to master as the resultant mix would be less than 16 bit in effect (think about it). Hope this helps, Mike
Viewed 240 times, 1 reply, 5 messages in thread. Reply to this message.
From: steve parker <steveparker@350.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 at 8:13:05 PM
Subject: Re: [LUG] Re: bit generations
Message #215221
This is a reply to #215212.
> Harsh but fair... any type of compression is going to raise the dither-noise > floor (dithering uses random noise to toggle the > least significant bits and give the impression of more dynamic > range) and produce artifact heavy results, bad. Any mastering > engineer who uses digital *at all* should know this. Dithering > should only be used after the last dsp process. I wouldn't use > any mastering engineer who wanted a dithered 16bit (or truncated > for that matter!) file to master as the resultant mix would be > less than 16 bit in effect (think about it). I agree that files should go for mastering with 24 bits. Noiseshaped dither *should* be the last process (if you want it). But *if* you do reduce bitrate at any stage then you should always dither. Truncation or rounding always ends up with less dynamic range then if you dither first. Steve Parker. ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUG Group Buy for Serato's Pitch n' Time LE until June 14th! See http://logic-users.org/groupbuy/serato for full details
Viewed 218 times, 0 replies, 5 messages in thread. Reply to this message.

Forum Index | Read LUG: Policy/Rules Messages Threads Digests | Post New Message | Search!

Forum Index | Read LUG: Policy/Rules Messages Threads Digests | Post New Message | Search!


© 1994-2008, All Rights Reserved.