[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:03:16 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:37 PM, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
I was suggesting that there may be benefit to digitizing at 24 bits when
in fact you have far more noise than signal going into the converter. Do
a sharp FIR high-pass at 18 Hz and you still have plenty of bits of signal
left if you are lucky.

So the situation you're describing is something like this: the analog
signal being input to the ADC has a relatively low analog SNR. Correct?

In that case I really don't see why digitizing at a higher depth buys
you anything.

It doesn't with any modern DAW software. Nothing does internal
processing at 16 bits any more, and haven't for many years. But if
recording 12 bits of data at a 24bit sample size makes people happy,
then as they say, it won't hurt at least.

Trevor.

I think the point that needs to be made explicit here is this....

when digitizing records with clicks that are going to pass through a
de-click algorithm, having a wide enough dynamic range and frequency
response to fully capture ____the clicks___ (not just the music) can
be helpful to the de-click algorithm to recognize the clicks to remove
them.

Mark,

I agree; that makes sense. And if you have to drop the average music
level down 20 dB (or more) in order to prevent the clicks from
saturating, it's good to have a few more bits in the ADC.

Basically we're talking about a wider dynamic range signal that standard
audio.



Which standard? A/D-D/A are pretty much all 24 bit now anyway, except
for legacy gear. Even then...

For example. my old Fostex VF16 would track @24 bit. I don't recall if
it was true 24 bit or not when connected via Lightpipe - I used
16 bit until fairly recently ( when it died ) .

That's turn-of-the-century - 2000ish - technology.

--
Les Cargill