At 7:32 AM -0700 5/23/07, Lou Judson wrote:
>Not fair, not unbiased, Raimund. 24 is to 12 as 16 is to 8, I think.=A0
>And "imagining" this kind of comparison is like listening to an=A0
>audiophile talk - nothing real there, just imaginary concepts.
>
>*I* can hear the difference, as it is not the noise floor but the
>resolution of the entire range that is improved with 24 bit.
Concert recordists are adamant about there being
noticeable, audible differences. Personally, the
differences I could hear in the comparison tests
posted on the Sonic Sense site a year or so ago
in the concert recording examples weren't
overwhelming. My suspicion was that the
differences I could hear required very good, very
"accurate" (expensive) monitoring.
Lou, maybe you can point us to some blind tests we can listen to?
In addition to the low-saturation comparison
testing, now that more and more recordists can
afford recorders with quality pres that record
both 16 and 24, we could create and share some
blind A/B tests from sites with natural spectra
and dynamics.
Another pro 24 bit argument is that todays
speakers are pretty crude devices and that
someday there will be reproduction devices that
are much better and the differences will become
much more apparent.
No matter what blind testing suggests, I'm
certainly going to record at 24 bits when ever I
have the option, but I don't feel at great
disadvantage recording at 16 bits except when my
mic pre has minimal gain and the location is very
quiet. Rob D.
>
>I consider www.digido.com a very high authority on the subject.
>It is far more than the dynamic range...
>
>
><L>
>On May 23, 2007, at 3:40 AM, Raimund Specht wrote:
>
>> So, now imagine this conversion had been done from 24 to 16 bit
>> (providing an increase of the final dynamic range of 48dB). I'm afraid
> > that no one could hear the difference=8A
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
Department of Film
University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee
|