I understand your focus. I just think that it is not about loudness
or levels but resolution. You wouldn't use grainy film for bright
photos, unless it was cheaper enough to be beneficial. I'd use the
highest resolution film (or pixels, if digital) for the sharpest
cleanest image. That is analogous to 24 bit vs 16.
I could not make a 16 bit original any more except with a minidisc or
laptop - all my convertors operate at 24 bit, with dither if I want
16 bit results. I feel that strongly about the benefits, and the low
cost of 24 bit for the advantages.
I find every sound worth rerecording is benefitted by 24 bit
origination. I'm sorry to enter the debate, as if 16 is all you feel
you need, use what you like! But the misinformation about low level
recordings made me speak up... as an audio engineer with long
experience.
<L>
On May 23, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Raimund Specht wrote:
> Lou, please note that my statements apply to normal nature recording
> (with relatively low sound pressure levels) only.
>
> I would be curious to hear a real-world nature recording (without
> extremely high sound levels of course) that actually benefits from the
> 24 bit format. Can you provide an example?
>
> Raimund
|