Why Bother Render In 24bit?

Hey guys, happy saturday…hope everyone is well. I read that it is a good idea to render all your material to at least 24 bit 96000hz. While I am aware the person who wrote this is well more versed than I, I still wonder what is the point when most of my material will be released in CD or mp3 format forcing me to dither in order to avoid unpleasant aliasing, artifacts etc. The sound quality might even be worse then when heard as mp3 or on cd no? Unless I dither or use another suitable method(tape etc)To save cpu time I render a lot parts to sample…should I render these to 32 or 24 bit as well…I figured just as well render them to 16 bit to avoid dithering, artifacts etc. Hope all are staying cool…pretty hot in london actually surprise, surprise!!

Probably because its easier to render down in the long run than render up. People who use other digital media do this all the time because you never know what the future holds but it usually means higher resolution.

Reason why you “should” use more than 16bits and higher sample rate is not that it sounds better but it gives more resolution for editing the sound. Like dynamics processing or timestreching etc.
I dunno if it’s true but i have heard that if the material is for cd, you should use 88,2khz instead of 96khz because it’s easier to calculate 88,2khz /2 =44,1khz than from 96khz. Sounds logical to me tho.

because a audio file that is converted from 96.000 to 44.100 sounds better* than a straight 44.100 render.

  • better means different in this case, it doesn’t always mean it sounds nicer to the ear… but that’s another story


That wasn’t my source. I heard it long time before i even heard about renoise.

O wow! You guys are the best! Multitude of responses! Thx…someone said that 96khz to 44khz sounds better…(even though thats another discussion!) wouldn’t 88-44 sound better? In any event thx guys…I am gonna put my first renoise track up soon…any suggestions on where best to post? Enjoy your Sunday!! :)

simple, coz:
if you render 24/96 and downsampling in high quality to 16/44 (after mastered) you should get more detailed final music. working in 24/96 is create more detail to all Dsp plugins. more preciese.

There seems to be an argument among professionals on this one actually, I’ve been told specifically by a local mastering engineer that it’s better to use 44 or 88 if you are finalizing to cd. But I disagree with him because in my personal experience doing everything, every step of the way at 96 sounds way better than doing everything at 88 or 44, even with the conversion at the end. I’m also doing everything at 96 these days because I want my music to sound good 10 years from now when the CD is extinct.

Oh, and find a decent converter to go from 96/24 to 44/16. (eg Wavelab). On a good system you can hear crappy converters quite easily, they can leave all kids of artifacts in your final render depending on the timbral content of your track. I remember trying adobe audition once and listening to the result on a decent system, there was all kinds of digital distortion that shouldn’t be there… it was quite an exercise in frustration.

i’ve been using 88khz --> 44khz a lot, which I find very logical, and i don’t really hear the difference between 88 and 96.

I have a feeling that there’s some placebo effect floating around in this samplerate mania… or we are simply equipped with VERY different ears, headphones or monitors.

I still go by the mantra that bit depth is more important that sample rate but with the price of hard drives these days there’s generally not much hard in upping the anty for both.

This brings me another question. If i have… let’s say 16bit 44.1khz sample and i convert it to 32bit 96khz or 88khz, do i get any advantage or is it the same is it was? :blink:

you get an advantage if you apply further signal processing to the audio data after bitrate conversion and upsampling, as these algorithms will be applied with a higher resolution then.
if you simply do the conversion without further working on the waveform, there won’t be any gain.

it’s about the same as it is with a 32kbps mp3:
it won’t sound any better if converted to a higher (192kbps, 256kbps, etc) bitrate, because no device on earth is (yet) able to turn shit into gold.

Wow! I am impressed…I haven’t checked this post out for weeks and the debate is still going on…just as well because it is an important topic, thx for everyones responses. Is a conversion program the same as a dithering program?

Just to be clear its not that I don’t notice a difference, there is a distinct difference between 96000hz and 44100hz(all sample rates actually, just flick through them while tracking and you will hear it)…it is extremely clear…the reverb and delay portion of one of my plug ins even sounds completely different. I am not so sure, however, I even hear a difference between 32 bit and 16 bit…maybe I am just deaf(which is a possibilty). That is my concern as this brings up all this dithermania that I am so un-schooled in:)

Difference between high and low frequencies usually have to do with the interpolation.
The difference between high and low bitrates is always prominent… differences between various bit-rate images tell you exactly what.
To show you difference between dithering and none-dithering, i think Bantai’s post will help you out the better understanding:

Regarding differences in bitrate and frequency quality in any host regarding plugins is something you should be cautious with if plugins do not support e.g. 96Khz but are forced to play that rate, the audio coming out goes twice as slow…