It gets hard to separate facts from opinion. Some things are easy... If you assume a certain dynamic range for the recording (like the 65 dB we started the discussion with), then the resolution required is just straight math and in this case 11 bits is sufficient. 20*log(2^11)= 66 dB. And you are correct that encoding it with any more bits than that is a waste. Your analogy of the letter in the envelope is spot on.
But things diverge when you start talking about opinions. How much extra headroom should you allow for mistakes in setting record levels? What is really the dynamic range of the performance in the environment? Do you want 'Just good enough', or some extra margin? How much margin? I personally like the 24/96k 'format' just because I don't want the transport mechanism to be what sets the performance limit. I agree that it is overkill. But when has high end audio ever been about 'good enough'. Those that say the 16/44k is good enough are absolutely correct. And their point that the extra bits are probably wasted is also correct. Probably every recording I own could be adequately captured at 16/44k, but I keep hoping that someday there will be one that has more dynamic range than that. I'm an audiophile. Terry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
