Re: A good solution?

["Dan Dugan" dandugan_1999]

DAN DUGAN:
>  > 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.

WALT:
>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.

Right! There's hardly anything short of a space shuttle launch that
can't be captured within 16 bits of dynamic range, if you set the
level right. Classical music was done pretty well back when
converters could only do 14 bits!

-Dan Dugan