Reply 40 of 71, by tpowell.ca
- Rank
- Member
wrote:One of the misconceptions I'd tried to address with this thread is the notion that only 16-bit samples benefit from 16-bit playb […]
One of the misconceptions I'd tried to address with this thread is the notion that only 16-bit samples benefit from 16-bit playback. As mentioned early on, it is fairly common for mid/late-90's audio engines to mix several 8-bit mono @ 11kHz (or greater) samples into a stereo stream, while also providing software effects like reverb or spatialization.
Using an example of straight mixing/playback of eight 8-bit samples, theory suggests that if there isn't at least 11-bit mixing resolution, with corresponding 11-bit output, there is a necessary loss of information and subsequent increase in noise. In this example, 16-bit mixing and output is more-than-adequate for full-resolution playback, while 8-bit routines are not.
In other words, and concerning the summation of multiple 8-bit samples, irrespective of frequency:
8-bit mixing, 8-bit output = loss of resolution (Worst)
16-bit mixing, 8-bit output = loss of resolution (Better)
16-bit mixing, 16-bit output = theoretically lossless (Best)With this in mind, I'm of the (perhaps incorrect) opinion that knowing the rates and bit-depths of individual samples is of lesser importance than knowing the mixing and final output rate and depth.
You're absolutely right.
To maintain quality, it is crucial to mix at a higher bit-depth than the source and output when mixing multiple sources.
Even with 16bit, you should mix at 24+bits if you want to keep the noise floor and dynamics while mixing 16bit material.
- Merlin: MS-4144, AMD5x86-160 32MB, 16GB CF, ZIP100, Orpheus, GUS, S3 VirgeGX 2MB
Tesla: GA-6BXC, VIA C3 Ezra-T, 256MB, 120GB SATA, YMF744, GUSpnp, Quadro2
Newton: K6XV3+/66, AMD K6-III+500, 256MB, 32GB SSD, AWE32, Voodoo3