ralphpnj wrote: > Amazingly no one has yet mentioned that in order for a recording with a > highly compressed dynamic range to sound good one MUST obtain a 24 bit > version (or even a 32 bit version) since those extra 8 bits provide for > approximately 50% more dynamic range (16 bit audio - 96 dB of dynamic > range versus 24 bit audio - 144 dB of dynamic range and 144 - 96 = 48, > which is 50% of 96). > > So Franz Ferdinand in 16 bit sounds terrible but that same recording at > 24 bit sounds wonderful. So imagine just how good it will sound on a 32 > bit version. > > And who says I don't have a firm grasp of the principles of digital > audio? As you can plainly see from the above paragraphs I have at least > as much knowledge of digital audio as any one who currently writes for > or edits any of the high end audio magazines. ;)
Except you know that a dB scale isn't linear so 96 isn't double 48 afaik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel I do hope the part about 16/24/32 was a joke. 'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102391 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
