Garthrr wrote:

So is this point a matter of contention or is this agreed upon by
all? If it is agreed upon then is the argument on the "24 bit sounds
no better than 16 bit" side that the effects of the ambiguity are
inherently negligable or perhaps that interpolation or something else
"repairs" the ambiguity adequately? I hope I have framed thew
question well enough to be understood.


The fact that it isn't agreed upon by all doesn't mean it's really a
matter of contention. This is a math question, and it has a correct
answer. The disagreement only comes from those who don't know the
correct answer. That sounds snotty, but I'm saying it aside from any
declaration of who's right and who's wrong. I'm saying that after
hashing it out, it's not going to be a matter of opinion.

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.

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