Danny, can you provide an example for such a "much richer sounding" 24
bit recrding in contrast to 16 bit?
As an electrical engineer with plenty experience in designing digital
signal processing systems, I must admit that I cannot understand why
there should be such a big difference at least for recording the soft
sounds of nature.
It is my impression that this kind of audiopile tech talk is nothing
else than unproven speculation or wishful thinking that is of course
suppported by the marketing propaganda of the gear manufacturers...
Raimund
Danny Meltzer wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> 24 bit is much richer sounding than 16 bit.
>
> 96khz is only a bit more defined than 48khz.
>
> Of course...IMHO.
>
> Danny
>
> --- In Scott Fraser
> <scott_fraser@> wrote:
> >
> > <<Sorry if this adding to the confusion but no one has
> > mentioned 96kHz sampling rate?
> > Would this make 'more' of a difference than 24 bits
> > would perhaps to any recording?>>
> >
> > In my experience, & that of the golden-eared producers I often work =
> > with, the difference between 16 & 24 bit is hugely more discernible =
> > than the difference between 44.1k & any higher sampling rates.
> >
> > Scott Fraser
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|