In article , Justin Ulysses
Morse writes:

Furthermore, I don't think by any means that Jay is claiming 24 bits
sounds not better than 16 bits. If you read his discussion on his
website, he very clearly considers more than 16 bits necessary for
transparent audio. He's simply saying that the benefit comes only in
the lowest audio levels.

Actually I was under the impresion that Jay was on the other side of the
fence--that he was saying that 24 bit was really no better than 16 bit for any
sort of real world audio. Perhaps I misunderstood his stance. I thought it was
Arny who was contending that there is resolution to be gained by 24 bit,
resolution which exists even in the not-so-low level signal.

Disclaimer: Please forgive me if I accidently put words in anyone's mouth while
trying to paraphrase something. If I do its just my ignorance of the subject
matter and not any desire to spin.

In a way he's right and in a way he's wrong. It sounds like he's
saying that increased bit depth can't add any resolution to loud
sources, that it only adds the ability to reproduce quiet sounds. But
I think he knows that a loud source can have quiet elements in it.
Music is complex and it can be thought of as a bunch of simultaneous
sounds at multiple amplitudes and frequencies. If Jay is suggesting
that the benefit of "8 more bits" only exists when there are no signals
above -96dBFS present, then he is wrong. If he is saying that the
"increased resolution" on a full-scale signal is nothing more than the
added ability to resolve the quietest overtones, then he's right and is
actually in full agreement with Arny. This is one of those areas where
describing audio in words gets kind of tricky.


ulysses

Thanks Ulysses. There is still a nagging question I have about all this but I
want to try to think of a way to phrase it properly.

Garth~



"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney