Hi Geopaul is it?
you wrote
> If we have more information, then why aren't we creating a representation=
of reality that is >superior? All we have is information in the final anal=
ysis. It is just organized and hooked
>up to devices
I don't think anyone is arguing the point that 24 is not superior...it
is just that some are trying to rest our minds at ease when it comes
to recording without a dynamic range that pushes that 16 bit reality
into clipping and even going so far as to saying that the same could
be said for an 8 bit recording. So no real groundbreaking revelations
here, just good ole simple math.
>And for those who think 24 bit is by definiion better, the same or
worse than 16 bit,
>please explain what the recording complex does with this additional
information, if there
>is more.
As for the recording industry...well those guys are just different
animals aren't they? It seems that they record at very high levels and
use a great deal of dynamic range. I heard Bob Dylan recently complain
that the warmth was lacking in modern recordings and he lamented that
there are very few great recordings being made, even with all this so
called state of the art technology. Too many choices? Who knows? but
the fact remains that to capture a nature recording we want clean and
representative and not necesarily warm and fuzzy, although I do like
my thunderstorms on the baked crispy side now and then.
Best,
Mark R.
|