There is much to "lose" by not using 24 bit - it is not signal to
noise per se, but finer gradation of detail, and a wider range of
processing that can be done with 24 bit.
The point of the articles you quote is that if the preamp noise is so
bad then 24 bit won't sound better, but that is wrong. 24 bit gives
far more definition, especially if any processing will be done to the
audio - even just a simple change in level or a fade out. And any
software attempt to remove noise will be more successful in 24 bit.
It is somewhat similar to the difference between cassette and reel
tape in my experience.
See <http://www.sounddevices.com/tech/24-bit.htm> for audible demos.
If you record but never alter in any way then 16 is fine. If you make
the slightest change in the audio then 24 bit is better. Drives are
so cheap now, there is no reason not to use 24 bit unless you
recorder doesn't support it!
It depends on you audio goals and quality considerations. Given a
perfect mic and preamp, you could hear a noise floor difference, but
really it is much more than simple S/N that 24 bit supports.
Just my firm opinion,
Lou
On May 13, 2007, at 6:54 AM, Curt Olson wrote:
> If, as you seem to indicate, there isn't much to loose with 16 bit,
> and
> definitely something to gain (less consumption of blank media and
> battery power, plus faster transfer times afterward), what compelling
> reasons do we have to prefer 24 bit for capturing our original field
> recordings?
>
> Still conflicted after all these years,
>
> Curt Olson
|