At 3:50 PM -0800 1/21/06, Aaron Ximm wrote:
> > Cuumulative rounding error, and resolution in the most quiet passages,
>> are the main reasons I think.
>
>Should clarify, as Derek says, this is assuming some processing is being d=
one!
>
>--
>
> www.quietamerican.org
>
I concur and will probably only make it more confusing, but nonetheless:
A 24 bit mix file created from a 24 bit field recording retains more
of the sound characteristics heard during equalizing/mixing* than a
24 bit mix file made from a 16 bit field recording. The difference in
16 vs 24 bit performance becomes increasingly pronounced as
saturation in the field recording drops.
I have read that simpler Audio CD burning applications like Toast and
iTunes, simply drop (or "truncate") the additional 8 bits when the
original file is 24 bit/44.1K. There seems to be very little audible
affect on sound qualities as long as my mix file is well-saturated
(when monitored through the same audio interface as the mix) Is this
because there is little or no significant processing involved?
*using 32 bit real-time monitoring
Vicky, Dan Heend summarizes: " It is important to note that the step
from 16-bit to 24-bit only requires a 50% increase in storage whereas
doubling the sample rate doubles the necessary storage space. While
increased sampling rate delivers improved audio quality, the ratio of
improvement to file size may not be justifiable when space and time
is at a premium. When file size and editing time is an issue, most
recordists chose to step up to 24-bit as opposed to going to the
higher sampling rate while continuing to sample at 16-bit... the
increased dynamic range of 24-bit over 16-bit is definitely said to
be the more easily perceivable of the two [quality improvement from
more bits vs. improvement from greater sample rate]." Rob D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|