TerryS wrote: > It gets hard to separate facts from opinion. Some things are easy... If > you assume a certain dynamic range for the recording (like the 65 dB we > started the discussion with), then the resolution required is just > straight math and in this case 11 bits is sufficient. 20*log(2^11)= 66 > dB. > And you are correct that encoding it with any more bits than that is a > waste. Your analogy of the letter in the envelope is spot on. > > But things diverge when you start talking about opinions. > How much extra headroom should you allow for mistakes in setting record > levels? > What is really the dynamic range of the performance in the environment? > > Do you want 'Just good enough', or some extra margin? How much margin? > > I personally like the 24/96k 'format' just because I don't want the > transport mechanism to be what sets the performance limit. I agree that > it is overkill. But when has high end audio ever been about 'good > enough'. > Those that say the 16/44k is good enough are absolutely correct. And > their point that the extra bits are probably wasted is also correct. > Probably every recording I own could be adequately captured at 16/44k, > but I keep hoping that someday there will be one that has more dynamic > range than that. I'm an audiophile. > > Terry
Thanks for answering my question. Now onto your points about opinions. All of these points have more to do with the process used to initially record the music and are useful in that context. What I'm trying to get are there any recordings where the 24 bit version being sold the the consumer has an actual dynamic range that is GREATER than the 16 bit version. Taking a step back into analog recordings, most of which were/are made using many tracks but which are then edited and mastered down to two channel stereo for sale to the consumer, I think that a good analogy, although not an exact analogy, (yes, I do love analogies) with the current high resolution craze would be for the multi-track recording masters to be offered for sale to the consumer. In other words, there is a big difference between the needs of a recording team (artist, engineer and producer) and that of the end user. So while 24 bit may make sense when used during the recording process, 24 bit makes little to no difference to the end user of the finished (fully mixed and mastered) recording. And to be totally blunt: I don't think that are any fully mixed and mastered recordings where 16 bits does not provide the full dynamic range of the musical event on the recording. Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
