I think there is little debate about the fact that 24bit IS superior
to 16bit, on a simple mathematical basis. It's hard to argue the math
involved.
BUT, what is in question, is this. Is the extra information resulting
in an 'audible' difference. This is the key. Because most people
would say that if not, then it's indeed wasted space. This is where
people on the list are differing. It's really an extension of the
same argument about compression in audio files. When Minidisc came
out, many people were very wary of the fact that ATRAC is a
compressed format (myself included). The way it works is to 'throw
out' a fair amount of the information.
But it's also very smart, and does this amazingly well. Well enough
that it will still be able to record and reproduce well what is being
recorded. But 'technically', it of course 'inferior' to a full 16 bit
recording. It simply has to be. It's throwing out 4/5ths of the
information present in that signal. But I had a minidisc at one
point, and a pair of Audio Technica mics, and recorded quite a few
things with it. It's since been replaced by the M-Audio Microtrax for
a super small rig, but Minidisc is a pretty great format as far as
'bang for the buck' goes.
The same argument applies to MP3 and AAC, any of the compressed
formats. It also applies to 24 bit, 48 bit, 96K, 192K, any change in
the recording. The question is, how does the changing of the amount
of recorded information change the 'audible' experience of that file.
And this is where many of us are disagreeing. Some of use that have
experimented and begun to use it for ourselves are saying that under
certain circumstances, we can tell a difference. Others, most of
which seem to never have ever actually 'used' 24 bit for anything,
are saying it's impossible. And so we bog down in the mire between
those who 'know and use' it, and those you are seemingly 'guessing'
about it.
But the simple answer to your question is, YES, 24 bit contains a
larger amount of information, a better (at least in theory)
representation and more accurate reproduction of whatever it is you
are recording. About 100% of us who work in professional audio can
hear the difference. It's become the standard for any professional
audio work.
One reason for this is too that 'processing' of the signal, in the
computer, in the digital domain, benefits by working in 24 bits.
The other great factor of course is playback systems. If you're
listening back over $40 computer speakers, few of these things are
going to matter. As you move up into higher quality playback systems,
you're more likely to encounter 'hearing' the difference in these
things.
Ultimately, even MP3 can be used to make a great nature recording
many times. It's certainly not solely about the technology, as those
of us on the 24 bit side are constantly being accused of stating.
My personal philosophy is to record the best quality that the gear
you currently have is capable of. If you have a recorder that gives
you the option of 16 bit uncompressed, or 16 bit ATRAC, I'd always
use the uncompressed, assuming you can afford the extra $ involved in
the extra space. The same goes for 16 and 24. Anytime I could, I'd
record at 24. That's just me. I don't mind the extra file sizes.
And this is the last I'm going to post on this, cause I'm getting
tired of it to honestly. Just remember this, the original post that
started this off was about recording in 16bit versus 24bit on a Sound
Devices recorder. In other words, on a recorder that has a CHOICE
between the two. I've never proposed that people junk their old gear
and spend a lot of money on a 24 bit recorder. The proposition has
ALWAYS been, if you have a recorder that has the option between them,
you might want to consider recording in 24 bits for these reasons...
On May 26, 2007, at 7:05 AM, geopaul7 wrote:
> it would seem that 24 bits has more information in the
> digital file than does 16 bits. Is this true, or is it the same
> amount of information
> organized differently?
>
> 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 analysis. It is
> just organized and hooked
> up to devices.
|