I keep trying to stay out of this debate, but getting drawn back in:
Analog has "infinite resolution" in terms of a bit analogy, so other
than hiss or overmodulation distortion the comparison is not the same
as 24 vs 16 bit.
Neither 16 bit nor analog lose any quality or excellence, it is just
that 24 bit is better for audio than 16.
I have a 2.1 megapixel camera and it is useless to try to blow up a
small part of any image. Just too many details are lost. I understand
that 5 or 7 megapixels are adequate for professional work... The same
goes for 24 over 16 bit audio.
Anyone want to argue that a horse and buggy is better than a car
because it is good enough to get from A to B? I fail to understand
why people are arguing for poorer recordings - you do the best you
can with what you have, that is all.
<L>
On May 14, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Walter Knapp wrote:
> Compared to the major source of nature recordings in scientific
> archives
> (analog tape), 16 bit is excellent, way better. I know every member of
> this group has called a analog tape or 16 bit recording excellent at
> some time or the other. Did they all suddenly cease to be excellent
> just
> because a 24 bit recorder was invented for it's owner to brag about?
>
> 24bit vs 16 bit is just like the megapixel game in digital cameras.
> There are folks now who claim you can't take a digital photo without
> some megapixel count (usually twice what's available). Yet quality
> photographers just get on with producing excellent photography with
> far
> less megapixels.
|