16bit recording?

[demirichris]

So I have started my first real recording project and things are going smoothly. Using a very nice backline, good preamps, good room and great takes. The recording is sounding better than I had hoped and I am surprised at the results I am getting..

So far I have the drums, guitars and bass recorded and I have just noticed that I have my DAW set to record at 16bit...NOOO!!!

I am not above just going in and re-tracking the whole damn thing if it would make a big difference to go to 24bit. Would it make any sense to switch now to 24 for the lead guitars and vocals, or will that create issues?

Any help or thoughts would be greatly appriciated.
Thanks guys...

 

[abt]

I think it is a good idea to up sample to 24 and keep the tracks you've already got. It won't make any of the 16bit tracks sound any better but any processing you do on them latter will. 24 bit will be much better for vocals. If the disparity between them is too much, which I doubt it will be, then you can always switch back to 16bit and finish the job.

 

[ForefrontStudio]

I hate it when that happens... I've done that a time or two I know a few guys that don't even record at 24 bit. just 16, so I doubt it will be an issue for you

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

I hated doing a mix on a 16 bit system (tracked and mixed at 44.1 16bit). It just felt weird, I can't describe it. It was harder or something .

 

[Seizure.]

I did it once and once your past the fact that its in 16 bit and just work like you allways do it'll be fine.
Sucks if you make that mistake though..

The once i did, the guitarplayer took a clicktrack he made in cubase which had the session set to 16 bit...

 

[gabriel g.]

1. It is a question of headroom. 16 bit gives round about 96dB headroom
24bit gives you round about 144dB

2.I think you are doing some kind of metal production (and not some progressive tool stuff) so you are fine on the tracking point of view

3.But effects could sometimes work better with 24bit....

 

[BLUElightCory]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. You said yourself that you were happy with how it sounded; if you had never discovered your mistake you would still have been happy with it.

You might notice a small difference if you do the rest of the project at 24 bit, though since most of the tracks are already recorded it'll be negligible.

Lot of amazing records have been done at 16-bit, if it sounds fine it's fine.

 

[Josh M.]

And when you bounce down .wavs of the final mixes or whatever, won't it be 16bit anyway? I have heard that some people record in 16bit to keep the sound the same as the final bounce.

 

[Harry Hughes]

And when you bounce down .wavs of the final mixes or whatever, won't it be 16bit anyway? I have heard that some people record in 16bit to keep the sound the same as the final bounce.

Only if you choose to bounce to 16 bit.
Personally I think more people should be pushing for more 24 bit Loseless (or at least 320Kbps 24 bit which still sounds better than 44.1KHz/16 bit CD) releases.
It's 2009, we shouldn't have to be so bound to the CD format anymore when we have the option to have 24 bit/44.1KHz readily available if we choose to do it that way.

 

[Josh M.]

Only if you choose to bounce to 16 bit.
Personally I think more people should be pushing for more 24 bit Loseless (or at least 320Kbps 24 bit which still sounds better than 44.1KHz/16 bit CD) releases.
It's 2009, we shouldn't have to be so bound to the CD format anymore when we have the option to have 24 bit/44.1KHz readily available if we choose to do it that way.

Well that's a good point. But just in case you are bouncing to CD...