Re: A good solution?

["Walter Knapp" waltknapp]

Posted by: "Dan Dugan"

> Yep, and that's a bit-depth of between 20 and 21 bits. Nobody can
> really convert a signal at 24 bits, the lower bits are just noise.
>
> It may not be possible to convert all 24 bits, but a channel with a
> 20-21 bit depth can be 27 dB quieter than a 16-bit channel, and
> therefore "24 bit" encoding is worthwhile.

Of course this assumes you can find a site with such a wide dynamic
range. When theory meets practicality, "24 bit" is probably overkill. A
number on a spec chart is a lot different than the real sites we record.

One also has to have mics that are up to such a wide range too.

Walt