Tommi wrote:


Still, isn't it so that the number of possibilities doubles each time we add
a new bit, thus a 24 bit converter has 16, 777, 217 values to choose from
when converting the voltage to numbers. This means, that the
most-significant-bit of a 24 bit converter has (16,777,217 / 2) 8, 388,608
values to choose from when it's giving a number to any signal in the region
of roughly -6dB to 0 dB Full Scale, right?

That's right.


That leads to the following:
A 24 bit system has quantized a loud component somewhere between -6 to 0 dB
FS
a lot more accurately than a 16 bit system would with the same signal, since
it's rounded the original voltage more precisely.
Also, if you were recording the same source with a 24 bit system peaking
at -48dB FS _and_ a 16 bit system peaking at 0dB FS, after normalizing the
24bit file to 0 dB, you would essentially have two identical files,
_identically_ quantized, since the 24 bit system had used its 16
least-significant-bits.

Right again.


So, louder components are also represented better in a 24 bit system.
Are THESE aforementioned things something we can ALL agree on?

Yes. What must be remembered, however, is how the
inaccuracy is perceived. Many think that the increased
resolution results in less perception of some kind of
stairstep effect. That is not the case. The preceived
situation with an N bit converter done properly and going
through the A/D and then the D/A process is _exactly_ the
same as an infinite resolution conversion at both stages
with a digital adder in between just adding in a noise
signal comprised of a random variable with values of 0 or
2^-N at each sample time. What is heard is additive noise
and only that iff the conversion is done without correlation
between the value of that bit and the value of the sample.
This is practically achievable.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein