"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jay - atldigi" wrote in message

White Sawn's satement seems to indicate that the extra bits are within
the same dynamic range, thereby giving you greater detail within that
range. You can't into the trap of viewing digital audio like it's
digital imagery. Unfortunately, 24 bits leaves the top 96db range of
16 bit alone, but lowers the noise floor and allows the recording of
audio events that are even smaller, at a lower level, i.e. below
-96dB.


24 bits puts 16 extra levels between each pair of levels that exist with
16
bits. Thus, the resolution is increased at any level, not just the
smallest
one.

The reduction of the noise floor due to 24 bits is a consequence of the
extra resolution 24 bit coding provides between any of the two levels in a
16 bit representation. The two go together hand-in-hand because the coding
is linear.

The idea that adding bits does not increase resolution is yet another
popular urban myth about digital. It's similar to the urban myth that
analog
has resolution below the noise floor.


So, if you're recording, say, someone's vocals at both 16 and 24 bits, and
the peaks are at -6dB to 0dB FS, does the 24 bit recording represent more
accurately the signal in that region than the 16-bit version?