# 24 or 32 Bit stems ?



## GULL (Feb 17, 2015)

Hello,

What format generally you would use as stems for your mix? Is there a noticeable difference among 32 and 14 bit WAV formats when it comes to mixing effects?

Thank you.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Feb 17, 2015)

The theory is that 32-bit gives more headroom in the theoretical arena of digital audio. In reality, the human brain (let along the human ear) cannot resolve a higher range that 16 million increments (which is what 24-bit gives you) or for that matter 65,000 odd which is what 16-bit gives you.

However, with internal processing, and many many layers of effects and other digital tweaks, you really need 24-bit (as opposed to 16-bit) processing to accurately maintain all the data. I have never read (and certainly never heard) any compelling reason why 32-bit audio sources are even remotely necessary.


----------



## GULL (Feb 17, 2015)

Thanks 

But read that 32 bit is more suitable for digital 'processing', say an effect on bus. Or I understood so. If not, the author was too ambitious


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Feb 17, 2015)

Most of the math is 32-bit, that's true, and perhaps there are some teeny tiny advantages of not having to round up/down the results of 32-bit math on 24-bit audio - not that anyone or anything can tell the difference.

Honestly, it's hype. If it were true, why stop there... what about 48-bit audio or 64-bit audio? It will never be theoretically perfect, but your ears and brain stop caring at about 14 or 15 bit depth.


----------



## GULL (Feb 17, 2015)

True .


----------



## db0007 (Feb 18, 2015)

Spent a good portion of my career 24/48 just recently bumped to 32/48. Only difference I can truly tell is the files take up more space lol. Since I've also upgraded my clock I've been working with 32/88.2 which results in even drop to 44.1 so in theory no artifacts will remain. As far as 32 I can't hear a sonic difference wether recording bouncing etc. My take on it is if the files become larger obviously holding more data then there must be a slight bump in headroom. How much? Idk. If it sounds good to me I roll with it.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 18, 2015)

TBH, the only difference that I can think of, with current playback systems, is that your stems are not going to clip. However, if your stems are evening close to clipping, you're doing something wrong. :lol: 

D


----------



## GULL (Feb 18, 2015)

oh.. ok. didn't think that way


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Feb 18, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> TBH, the only difference that I can think of, with current playback systems, is that your stems are not going to clip. However, if your stems are evening close to clipping, you're doing something wrong. :lol:
> 
> D



Yeah this has come up a lot when people argue for 32-bit. The headroom between the highest signal peak and 0.0db is obviously much larger... BUT, it won't help you when mixing down and you still need to stay below 0.0db, otherwise you still will get clipping. That takes me to my prior question of, OK what now? 48-bit? 64-bit?

Also if the dynamic range for some stems is much larger than others, or other audio sources, you end up compressing and then the advantage is all gone.

It's a personal choice, but 24-bit really does give you a huge amount of headroom (assuming mixing for 16-bit audio ultimately).


----------



## GULL (Feb 18, 2015)

Actually, it was said that a processing algorithm would work and could bring more detailed results in 32 bit. This was not a statement, but was something obviously presumable.


----------



## PMortise (Feb 18, 2015)

I recently saw http://youtu.be/w4heTmaz3iQ?t=1m29s (this on youtube), though I don't know if there are any different considerations to be had between pop, orchestral, samples or live. If you're reading this John Rodd, please chime in.


----------



## The Darris (Feb 18, 2015)

Is there even a true 32-bit audio interface yet? Pro Tools only has 32-bit floating point which means it is all internal and is converted to 24 out of the interface. At least that is my understanding. I don't really see the point of using 32-bit currently.


----------



## GULL (Feb 18, 2015)

Yes. It's 32 bit float used internally about what I am talking.


----------



## markstyles (Feb 18, 2015)

I believe Logic has 32 bit internal processing.. I believe when you 'froze' a track it was that format.. But you better check that your DAW can import 32 bit tracks..


----------



## GULL (Feb 18, 2015)

My DAW supports 32 bit WAV. Many DAWs provide the functionality. Hence the curiosity is


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 29, 2016)

PMortise said:


> I recently saw http://youtu.be/w4heTmaz3iQ?t=1m29s (this on youtube), though I don't know if there are any different considerations to be had between pop, orchestral, samples or live. If you're reading this John Rodd, please chime in.



Just saw this now..... In my experience audio files are best recorded at 24 bit (I record at either 48k or 96k, depending on the project) 

The internal bit depth of a DAW these days is much much higher than 24 bit.... but for actually printing audio I think 24 bit is good, and is also pro audio industry standard.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Mar 1, 2016)

Does it make a significant difference performance wise? E.g. Faster rendering, lower cpu usage. The default in cubase is 32 bit float. I never questioned this.


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 1, 2016)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> Does it make a significant difference performance wise? E.g. Faster rendering, lower cpu usage. The default in cubase is 32 bit float. I never questioned this.



I do not know with Cubase, as I mainly use Pt HD. I do not use Cubase.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 1, 2016)

Welcome back, Mr. Rodd! 

Cubase operates at 32-bit floating point internally, regardless. Tho I am not sure what your Q refers to specifically, Markus, you can mix down to any bit depth and any s.rate, and from what I have seen, the render times are the same (or so close, the diff is not noticeable), and performance is not an issue.

Cheers.


----------



## GP_Hawk (Mar 1, 2016)

Sending your ME 32 bit mixdowns can be beneficial when he is converting for different formats like mp3.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Mar 2, 2016)

RiffWraith said:


> Welcome back, Mr. Rodd!
> 
> Cubase operates at 32-bit floating point internally, regardless. Tho I am not sure what your Q refers to specifically, Markus, you can mix down to any bit depth and any s.rate, and from what I have seen, the render times are the same (or so close, the diff is not noticeable), and performance is not an issue.
> 
> Cheers.


Thank you Jeff for for the info. So there is obviously no advantage to work on 24bit instead of 32bit float in terms of overall performance.


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

GP_Hawk said:


> Sending your ME 32 bit mixdowns can be beneficial when he is converting for different formats like mp3.



I disagree. 24 bit audio files have **way** more dynamic range than ANY piece of gear in anyones studio. 32 bit audio files have no advantage over 24 bit audio files, in my experience and opinion.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 3, 2016)

John Rodd said:


> I disagree. 24 bit audio files have **way** more dynamic range than ANY piece of gear in anyones studio. 32 bit audio files have no advantage over 24 bit audio files, in my experience and opinion.


Right! 32 bit files are only important when you work within your DAW with all your single tracks. I always work in 32 bit audio at home in my DAW, but I always send 24 bit files or 16 bit files out.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Mar 3, 2016)

John Rodd said:


> I disagree. 24 bit audio files have **way** more dynamic range than ANY piece of gear in anyones studio. 32 bit audio files have no advantage over 24 bit audio files, in my experience and opinion.



So, even while working in Cubase/DAW with individual tracks 32 has no advantage? (I'm asking...)


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

germancomponist said:


> Right! 32 bit files are only important when you work within your DAW with all your single tracks. I always work in 32 bit audio at home in my DAW, but I always send 24 bit files or 16 bit files out.



So tell me ... what preamp or mic or VI has more dynamic range than a 24 bit audio file can easily capture?


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

givemenoughrope said:


> So, even while working in Cubase/DAW with individual tracks 32 has no advantage? (I'm asking...)



Not sure who you are asking.... but I do not use Cubase. 

and...

Of course the math inside any modern DAW should be, and is more than 24 bit!


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 3, 2016)

John Rodd said:


> So tell me ... what preamp or mic or VI has more dynamic range than a 24 bit audio file can easily capture?


Not one, of course, smile. But the 32 bit float pointing files are good within my DAW, Cubase, because when using it there, never ever will be produced a distortion within Cubase. This is the only reason why I use it.


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

germancomponist said:


> Not one, of course, smile. But the 32 bit float pointing files are good within my DAW, Cubase, because when using it there, never ever will be produced a distortion within Cubase. This is the only reason why I use it.



But if you record audio at 24 bit..... the bit depth PATH *within* any modern DAW mixer is always *WAY* higher than 24 bit...... 

So it does not limit your internal DAW headroom if your audio files are at 24 bit. 

The headroom within any modern DAW has NOTHING to do with the bit depth you captured any audio at.

Am I wrong about this and Cubase? 

If I am wrong then Cubase is deeply flawed.... but I really doubt that I am wrong here.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 3, 2016)

John Rodd said:


> But if you record audio at 24 bit..... the bit depth PATH *within* any modern DAW mixer is always *WAY* higher than 24 bit......
> 
> So it does not limit your internal DAW headroom if your audio files are at 24 bit.
> 
> ...


Maybe I am wrong. In the very past, Charly Steinberg told me better to work always in 32 bit floating point audio, because then I would never ever get a digital distorion within Cubase. And as I said: I always export audio stems in 24 bit or 16 bit.


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

germancomponist said:


> Maybe I am wrong. In the very past, Charly Steinberg told me better to work always in 32 bit floating point audio, because then I would never ever get a digital distorion within Cubase. And as I said: I always export audio stems in 24 bit or 16 bit.



I did a bit of quick web searching, and a number of people all said the same thing

"[Cubase] Real time plugin processing is executed in the internal 32-bit floating point realm no matter the bit rate on your source files."

This is what I would expect ....


----------



## dgburns (Mar 3, 2016)

John Rodd said:


> I did a bit of quick web searching, and a number of people all said the same thing
> 
> "[Cubase] Real time plugin processing is executed in the internal 32-bit floating point realm no matter the bit rate on your source files."
> 
> This is what I would expect ....



I think the concern is less about the internal float engine and more to do with converting to and from pcm files.I've never done a project entirely in 32 float,as in recording 32 float files to drive.But I could see the benefit if however small...
but maybe this is all for those with golden ears,not working stiffs like me.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 3, 2016)

John Rodd said:


> I did a bit of quick web searching, and a number of people all said the same thing
> 
> "[Cubase] Real time plugin processing is executed in the internal 32-bit floating point realm no matter the bit rate on your source files."
> 
> This is what I would expect ....


John, maybe we should do a comparison test? I think it is interesting. I never spent a thought about using 24 bit files within Cubase, always worked with 32 ... .


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

germancomponist said:


> John, maybe we should do a comparison test? I think it is interesting. I never spent a thought about using 24 bit files within Cubase, always worked with 32 ... .



How about someone (anyone) read the current Cubase manual?

I see no need for a comparison test with this issue. I do not use Cubase.

I "have more important fish to fry" as they say.

Keep in mind .... Bit depth is all about dynamic range. 

It is NOT about "quality"

Sample rate is all about quality. 

I would choose 96 k 24 bit audio file recording over 44.1k 32 bit audio file recording EVERY SINGLE TIME if I was given the choice of how to record mics for a music project.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 3, 2016)

To be honest: I was told to work with 32 bit float pointing audio. From then on I did always and never spent a thought about it. My hardware drives are big enough.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2016)

I think of bit depth as being about low-level detail, although dynamic range is the other side of the same coin.

But sample rate improves the quality? I'm not recording acoustic ensembles with room detail, but I've never heard a meaningful difference between 48 and 96 in the audio interfaces I've tried here. Yeah the brick wall filter ringing is out of the audio spectrum, so there's an argument.

Maybe if I were recording orchestras I'd agree. In fact I don't disagree, because obviously you (John) are hearing something I haven't heard. But I can say I've never heard a difference recording solo instruments here.


----------



## John Rodd (Mar 3, 2016)

This thread is asking 24 bit audio files or 32 bit audio files....

There is LOTS of great info in this article... and it generally backs up my opinion that recording audio files at 24 bit is ideal... but recording audio files at a _*higher-than-24-bits*_ bit rate is basically a waste of time and a waste of hard drive space. 



http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/2...t-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2016)

Mos def.

I'm surprised nobody has said that higher sample rates give you more points to represent the waveform. Usually someone says that in a thread like this. 

Also, someone usually says more bits = more headroom.


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 14, 2016)

I stopped working in 32-bit float the other day after reading that article. In the end 32bit is just reducing some noise that I probably can't hear and the 32-bit files eat up 1/3 more space than 24-bit files.


----------

