Mixing Question - Levels

[Dwayne Russell]

Little munchkins run up and down the waveform to take samples?

That's what I thought!

[Dwayne Russell]

Bits has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how often a snapshot is taken....as Casey points out, it is the sampleRATE or sampleFREQUENCY that would indicateds the "how often". The words RATE and FREQUENCY are a pretty good clue... ...and so is the fact that the unit of measurement is Hertz...defind as "the unit of frequency of a periodic phenomenon".
As Casey points out, Bits indicate the resolution of AMPLITUDE, in other words how many ones and zeroes, i.e. how many discrete steps, are available to express the amplitude of the waveform at each point in time that a snapshot is taken.

matto

As I said, I should have used the word levels would have been better.

And what about the word "rate" in Bit Rate?

"i.e. how many discrete steps, are available to express the amplitude of the waveform at each point in time that a snapshot is taken."

YEs, That is what I said or meant to say. Both sample RATE and bit RATE deal with time.

[Casey H]

Dwayne
You are getting the terms bits and bit rate confused as they have two different meanings.

Bits as in 16 vs. 24 have nothing to do with time. They are purely how a measurement at a GIVEN TIME is stored in digital form.

"Bit rate" is the number of bits sampled in a second and *IS* related to time. It related directly to "sample rate" with the number of bits and channels factored in. Standard audio CD is sampled at 44.1K samples per second (sample rate). With 16 bits each sample x 2 channels, that = 1411.2 kbits/second.

Both the number of bits and the sample rate affect audio quality. Within limits, as you increase either, the sound quality gets better.

It comes down to 2 different things. (1) How often you take a sample measurement and (2) How accurate each measurement is.

HTH
Casey

[Dwayne Russell]

Dwayne
You are getting the terms bits and bit rate confused as they have two different meanings.

Bits as in 16 vs. 24 have nothing to do with time. They are purely how a measurement at a GIVEN TIME is stored in digital form.

"Bit rate" is the number of bits sampled in a second and *IS* related to time. It related directly to "sample rate" with the number of bits and channels factored in. Standard audio CD is sampled at 44.1K samples per second (sample rate). With 16 bits each sample x 2 channels, that = 1411.2 kbits/second.

Both the number of bits and the sample rate affect audio quality. Within limits, as you increase either, the sound quality gets better.

It comes down to 2 different things. (1) How often you take a sample measurement and (2) How accurate each measurement is.

HTH
Casey

I taught digital recording in Orlando Florida way back.

I know what a bit rate is. I was speaking about bit rates in all my posts here.

[Casey H]

The whole conversation was in reference to THIS discussion which was addressing the NUMBER OF BITS as in 16 or 24, not a bit rate.

Seems to be a "bit" of confusion.

I think we are all on the same page now.

Casey

I took a class in digital recording at UCLA, which was waaay over my head, but one thing I believe I remember: When recording tracks in digital, it's similar to signal-to-noise ratio in analog. The idea is to fill up all the "bits" (?) to get the beef on the tracks, just like getting into the red in analog on each track.

If I'm wrong about this, clue me in! But if that is correct, that means that the tracks are recorded to digital capacity, so lowering levels should not degrade the sound, just lower the volume of the sound.

Is this right? If not, I wasted my $600 because I didn't learn anything !

Thanks in advance,

Ern

You might want to get your money back

There is no such thing in digital..........because it's digital. Bits have nothing to do with saturation. The "beef" in digital has more to do with sample and hold fidelity, power and low jitter, not at what level your input is to your DAW.

What happens in volume after you record has to do with the program algorithm, not the record process.

Bits in digital refers to how often a snap shot of the wave is taken. 24 bits takes twice as many snap shots of the wave there for it is more a true picture of the wave. But how high you drive an input for recording will not change the fidelity whether it be 16 or 24 bit rates.

Bits has nothing to do with "how often a snap shot" is taken that is the sampling frequency. The number of bits that the sampler uses sets effectively the number of volume levels, the more bits the more levels the greater the dynamic range.

Ern you are right! Record at a good level and then dont worry about the fader levels.

To the original poster :- Some of the posts here are misinformed.

GOODBYE

[Dwayne Russell]

The whole conversation was in reference to THIS discussion which was addressing the NUMBER OF BITS as in 16 or 24, not a bit rate.

Which is why I brought it up. Maybe I read to fast because I am in the middle of something, but I think he got confused about what he was taught.


I think in his class they taught about bitrate and he got it wrong in that he confused plain ole bits with bitrate. I was trying to explain but I dont think I did it very well.

My first dive into digital recording theory was in 1984. By 1986 I was an assistant for Full Sail in Orlando. It has been a long time since I had to deal with the theory. I just push play and record! BUt it is because I was an instructor, that I had the idea he was misinformed, or did not get it. I'm just guessing here.

But one thing I remember and experience as well is that you dont have to "saturate" your hard disk with a "hot" level. Which is where this discussion began. If I remember correctly the BITRATE takes care of that. THAT is what I am saying.

After that, I was saying that if he is using Protools, then there is a whole other problem with volume. I was one of the first in the world to record on what is now PT. I know it well. I have had many discussions years ago wit the people who actually wrote the first draft of the program. And if I remember correctly and if my ears are not playing tricks, then I know that when you raise the volume on PT it is allot "thinner" sounding than on other DAWs.

He may be having a problem there as well. I'm guessing.

[mazz]

I think the term "bit rate" came about when compressed audio files (mp3s) began to be used on the internet for downloads. The bit rate made a difference in how long it would take for a file to download and also, probably more important at the time, how well it could stream without needing to stop and buffer before spitting out some more audio.

At this point, it may also refer to how fast the data is read off of a hard drive or is transferred down a network cable or a usb or firewire cable, which also has nothing to do with sample rate or bit resolution in linear PCM audio, the type under discussion here.

BTW: When I first started recording, we had to make our own tape, including mining the metals, doing the chemistry and cutting the tape into the proper widths. Winding tape heads was the hardest part. I was also the first one to use the BS-o-meter, way back when engineers wore lab coats and wouldn't let anyone even look at the gear.

Just a little ribbing, Dwayne!

[Casey H]

BTW: When I first started recording, we had to make our own tape, including mining the metals...

You had metals?

Casey

[Dwayne Russell]

I think the term "bit rate" came about when compressed audio files (mp3s) began to be used on the internet for downloads.

I was using term in 1984. Did we have MP3's then?

I am referring to bitrate in the sample and hold process, not making an MP3.

No need to insult me Mazz.

[mazz]

I don't see how the sentence you quoted could be construed as insulting, Dwayne. Obviously I don't have the vast background you do in this whole arena of digital audio, so I am here to learn as well, but I thought we knew each other well enough to engage in a little ribbing and still have an adult conversation. If bit rates are insulting, what's next, frequency response!?!!

A little confused