cliveb wrote: > At the recording stage, yes. I don't think anyone would argue against > recording at 24 bits. >
Think again. As I pointed out with simple math in a recent post, 24/96 adds about 200% wasted space to a 16/44 recording. If you are recording stereo, this is manageable even negligible, but if you are multitracking with a goodly number of channels, the file sizes can get to be challenging to manage, and for what? Numbers for the sake of numbers? > > Apart from the headroom issue, it also allows lots of editing and DSP to > be done without accumulating quantisation noise. But once it's all done > and dusted, there's no point packaging it for distribution at anything > more than 16 bit. In the real world the actual performance probably has more like 65-70 dynamic range, so using 16 bits gives you 25-30 dB headroom, which any recording engineer worth his salt can work with without problems. Most DSP processing and editing uses 32 bits and up, so the noise it adds to a 16 bit context is negligible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
