DVD 10bit, 12bit 28bit ?????

[mtrycraft]

Well this isn't exactly a marketing ploy this time. What the higher bit chips and sampling rate bring to the table is the ability to better resolve shadow and fine detail within the picture. Some 10 bit chips have a tough time with this low level information.

How many levels are needed and what bit rate would that be? What can the eye detect? I was told by in th eknow that 10 bit was enough. That is 1024 levels of scale.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

How many levels are needed and what bit rate would that be? What can the eye detect? I was told by in th eknow that 10 bit was enough. That is 1024 levels of scale.

Your question is unclear and inconcise. However you can sit closer to digital televisions and therefore the eye can detect more detail than it could with analog television. If the DVD player is non progressive, then 10 bits would be enough. But with DVD players that feature progressive scanning, 12 bit chips actually do a better job of of fleshing out more low level detail(remember you are sitting closer to the T.V) and therefore give the eye more to see. Whether the eye can see that low level detail is different from one person to the next, the size of the screen, and what type of display device you use. The higher the bitrate and sampling rate, the better the picture is. There is a point of diminishing returns, but 12 bit DAC's are not quite at that point.

I got this information from Joe Kane at his last Imaging Science workshop so don't kill the messenger.

[mtrycraft]

Your question is unclear and inconcise. However you can sit closer to digital televisions and therefore the eye can detect more detail than it could with analog television. If the DVD player is non progressive, then 10 bits would be enough. But with DVD players that feature progressive scanning, 12 bit chips actually do a better job of of fleshing out more low level detail(remember you are sitting closer to the T.V) and therefore give the eye more to see. Whether the eye can see that low level detail is different from one person to the next, the size of the screen, and what type of display device you use. The higher the bitrate and sampling rate, the better the picture is. There is a point of diminishing returns, but 12 bit DAC's are not quite at that point.

I got this information from Joe Kane at his last Imaging Science workshop so don't kill the messenger.

Now why would I kill the messenger? I would just interrogate them more
Now we have 12 bits or close to it. Some suggested that 32 or 64 may not be enough.

[Crunchyriff]

from an audio perspective:

A friend of mine recently upgraded his private digital home rec. studio, from 16bit to 24bit. We were right in the middle of recording three songs for a project of mine. Him being the engineer, he suggested scrapping everything and starting over, all in 24bit.
I, being the producer, was interested in 'getting the job done', and wasn't going to commit him to extra time; and being totally from the analog side of things in recording studios (for MANY years), I didn't care about all the fuss over the upgrade.

So... he asked me if I'd care to a/b a few tracks..those done 16bit, and the others just done in 24bit.

when he switched from the 16, to 24bit track all I could say was "oh SH%#!"...
A HUGE difference. The drum tracks just opened up, guitars had much more presence- and it was literally like taking the sheets of the speakers. Tracks were all done identically, with the same microphones, same V-Drum Pro kit; and same EQ on the tracks. The ONLY thing changed was the hardware.

Saying that to say this: I can't imagine the video being any less important. Just a couple of bits more might not get you much, but a 6-8 bit improvement in video may be startling.

[ray5aes]

On my A/V receiver it has a sticker on it that reads as follows.
32 bit- Architecture
64 bit- Accumulator Resolution.
What is it that I'm missing as I run all of my video directly to the TV and not thru the A/V receiver.
My DVD player says 12-bit-54mhz ?
Thank you Sir T
Ray

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

On my A/V receiver it has a sticker on it that reads as follows.
32 bit- Architecture
64 bit- Accumulator Resolution.
What is it that I'm missing as I run all of my video directly to the TV and not thru the A/V receiver.
My DVD player says 12-bit-54mhz ?

Thank you Sir T
Ray

I don't think you are missing a thing. I run all of my video sources direct to the television because that is the best way to hookup video sources. I do not believe in hookup video sources to processing and amplification sources as it just invites intereference. Stay with your current setup.

[mtrycraft]

So... he asked me if I'd care to a/b a few tracks..those done 16bit, and the others just done in 24bit.


This is vague what you compared, let alone how. Are these mastered from the same master? Same EQ without any monkey business?

Or, are they two performances, one recorded in 16 bits another in 24 bits?

How do you know your 24 bit system is capable of doing 24 bits? That is below thermal nois floor, you know. Or did you?

when he switched from the 16, to 24bit track all I could say was "oh SH%#!"...
A HUGE difference. The drum tracks just opened up, guitars had much more presence- and it was literally like taking the sheets of the speakers.

Of course this comparison was level matched and DBT compared? What was the statistics of it all?
I ask because there is just no reliable published data to support your claim that I am aware of.

Saying that to say this: I can't imagine the video being any less important. Just a couple of bits more might not get you much, but a 6-8 bit improvement in video may be startling.

Or not.

[Crunchyriff]

First of all, have you ever recorded anything, are you a musician?

There was nothing vague about the difference, I can tell you that.

Let me try to clear up any misunderstandings here. The tracks were raw instrument and vocal tracks, not mixed down and mastered to 2 channel stereo. We were still in the multi-track stage of things.

We had initially gone in and done scratch tracks- the full band 'live' to get the drums and bass down, the basic guitars, keys, and capture a 'live' feeling mix.. Halfway thru the sessions, our engineer, a close friend of mine, upgraded his DAW from a 16 bit MOTU interface to a 24-bit/96kHz unit. We did a few fresh guitar tracks (my guitar went out of tune during the scratch track session so it was necessary to fix that..) and this was with the same settings on the mixer, and same mic, same mic position ( it was left the way it was earlier) same Marshall/Soldano amp rig- we're talking apples to apples here, the ONLY exception being the 24-bit upgrade. Nothing else was touched one iota.

I cut a fresh track, and we a/b'd the two. Did the same with the keyboards (Korg and Roland Digital Keys- direct into the console, unchanged settings)- same result. Drums- same thing (Roland V-DrumPro, 24-bit Drums, direct into console, unchanged settings) Vocals- oh my what a difference. Since everything is set with automation on the mixing board, I can guarantee you nothing changed there, either. I just went over (to another track) with those same board settings.

"Of course this comparison was level matched and DBT compared? What was the statistics of it all?
I ask because there is just no reliable published data to support your claim that I am aware of."

'Published data' is what HAPPENED and what was heard. Period. This didn't require a lab-smock, or the coveted "DBT". I don't have a nice database collated for you to browse thru. All that stuff is on my engineer's MAC G4 (bounced into his new DigiDesign 002) - the engineer who, btw, was Roy Clark's touring bassist for a number of years, and is one of the hottest 1st-call jazz bass players on the west coast. (and I'm NOT exaggerating) Saying that to say this: we aren't exactly a bunch of kids wet behind the ears, playing around with a Tascam 4-track cassette deck. (Not that there's anything wrong with that format for what it is.)

Whether or not 24-bit is, as you put it, below the 'thermal noise floor' (sounds like a 'muffler bearing'..), is irrelevant in this context. The point is that you have a more robust, clearer track. You won't find one PRO DIGITAL studio that isn't 24-bit. There is a reason all the pro Digital studios go 24-bit. Realism. Less grainy sound, if you will.

Digital recording is great for what it is, and I think it's a fabulous tool; but I much prefer a Studer 2" 24 trk tape machine, or an Otari for that matter, any day of the week.

If you would like to check up on this side of digital technology- the recording end of it, may I suggest two great online resources- Prorec.com, and Artistpro.com; it would take too much bandwidth on this BBS to explain the nuts and bolts of it. And this has strayed too far from the topic originator's question (and I apologize for that, NewAudioBuff! )


Hope this helps, Mrtycrafts.

[mtrycraft]

First of all, have you ever recorded anything, are you a musician?

Irrelevant to the issues at hand.

There was nothing vague about the difference, I can tell you that.


Well, you can tell me that but I don't see any credible evidence here to support this claim.

Let me try to clear up any misunderstandings here. The tracks were raw instrument and vocal tracks, not mixed down and mastered to 2 channel stereo. We were still in the multi-track stage of things.
We had initially gone in and done scratch tracks- the full band 'live' to get the drums and bass down, the basic guitars, keys, and capture a 'live' feeling mix..

So, apparently these were done in 16 bits then.


[b]Halfway thru the sessions, our engineer, a close friend of mine, upgraded his DAW from a 16 bit MOTU interface to a 24-bit/96kHz unit. We did a few fresh guitar tracks (my guitar went out of tune during the scratch track session so it was necessary to fix that..) and this was with the same settings on the mixer, and same mic, same mic position ( it was left the way it was earlier) same Marshall/Soldano amp rig- we're talking apples to apples here, the ONLY exception being the 24-bit upgrade. Nothing else was touched one iota.[b]


As I thought. You recorded a new performance and compared the two different performances with the two bit rates. Not a credible comparison.

Since everything is set with automation on the mixing board, I can guarantee you nothing changed there, either. I just went over (to another track) with those same board settings.

Only your two performances recorded were different. No wonder they sounded different.



'Published data' is what HAPPENED and what was heard. Period.


Well, that is what we are trying to establish, what you perceived or what you really heard. From you comparison, it is undeterminable.


This didn't require a lab-smock, or the coveted "DBT".

Well, maybe the lab coat can go, but the DBT is a must to be sure.

I don't have a nice database collated for you to browse thru.

How about a not nice one, a coulle.

All that stuff is on my engineer's MAC G4 (bounced into his new DigiDesign 002) - the engineer who, btw, was Roy Clark's touring bassist for a number of years, and is one of the hottest 1st-call jazz bass players on the west coast. (and I'm NOT exaggerating) Saying that to say this: we aren't exactly a bunch of kids wet behind the ears, playing around with a Tascam 4-track cassette deck. (Not that there's anything wrong with that format for what it is.)

Oh, I am not questioning your recording or performing ability, just your a/b comparison that is unbiased and credible. From your accounting, it is lacking much.

Whether or not 24-bit is, as you put it, below the 'thermal noise floor' (sounds like a 'muffler bearing'..), is irrelevant in this context.

If it was, I would not have brought it up.

The point is that you have a more robust, clearer track. You won't find one PRO DIGITAL studio that isn't 24-bit. There is a reason all the pro Digital studios go 24-bit. Realism. Less grainy sound, if you will.

There are other reasons for using 24 bits.
.



Hope this helps, Mrtycrafts.


Thanks for your sincere explanations.