Dan Dugan wrote:
> 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
I agree. 24-bit is certainly worthwhile if you have the gear. But with
careful gain staging and dithering, 16-bit can still deliver fantastic
results. By contrast, I recently purchased Sheryl Crow's 2006 CD
"Wildflower." The credits show some of the biggest-name studios and
engineers in the music business. I'm guessing at least 24/96 from end
to end, and it sounds awful. High definition? Yea right...
Curt Olson
|