View Single Post
  #72   Report Post  
Jay - atldigi
 
Posts: n/a
Default 16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain

In article , Justin
Ulysses Morse wrote:

Jay - atldigi wrote:

At least somebody understands me, but I thought I had already said this
somewhere in the thread. It's those quieter components that you are
getting from the extra bits. The louder components aren't represented
any better. In the end, it can be a more precise and better sounding
recording (provided the source is of a quality to benefit), but it's
because of the little things you can now record, not that the big ones
are better.


See, you are in full agreement with Arny. It just depends on whether
you're thinking of the music as a collection of sounds or one big
sound. As a collection of sounds, your extra bits are only revealing
the quiet ones; the loud components were already represented by 16
bits. But when you step back and listen to the whole thing, what that
MEANS is greater detail in the music, even where it's loud.


ulysses


Perhaps all the extra discussion gets in the way of the simple truths.
Here's the most simple way I think my point can be stated:


16 bits is perfectly capable of reproducing 96 dB of dynamic range. With
dither, the system is linear.


You can get better than that. It's linear within 96 dB (a little less if
you count the dither's added noise floor, a little more if you count
what the ear can hear within the noise floor due to averaging of noise
in our brain). You can't get better than "what you put in is what you
get out".

However, that's not all there is to audio, and we can hear about 120 dB
of dynamic range, so 16 bits can be a limitation and 20 or 24 can
certainly sound better. It doesn't have to be in an area where there's
nothing above -96 either. however, it in no way makes 16 bits' limited
96db range any less accurate. That's the point people seem to miss.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com