Yeah Raimund,
I can only say it is MY honest opinion. I could post files and people
could debate. All I meant was that I truly believe and can clearly
hear a big improvement in recording in 24 bit. You can take that
however you wish.
Danny
--- In "Raimund Specht"
<> wrote:
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|