"Tommi" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jay - atldigi" wrote in message

White Sawn's satement seems to indicate that the extra bits are
within the same dynamic range, thereby giving you greater detail
within that range. You can't into the trap of viewing digital audio
like it's digital imagery. Unfortunately, 24 bits leaves the top
96db range of 16 bit alone, but lowers the noise floor and allows
the recording of audio events that are even smaller, at a lower
level, i.e. below
-96dB.


24 bits puts 16 extra levels between each pair of levels that exist
with 16 bits. Thus, the resolution is increased at any level, not
just the smallest one.

The reduction of the noise floor due to 24 bits is a consequence of
the extra resolution 24 bit coding provides between any of the two
levels in a 16 bit representation. The two go together hand-in-hand
because the coding is linear.

The idea that adding bits does not increase resolution is yet another
popular urban myth about digital. It's similar to the urban myth
that analog has resolution below the noise floor.

So, if you're recording, say, someone's vocals at both 16 and 24
bits, and the peaks are at -6dB to 0dB FS, does the 24 bit recording
represent more accurately the signal in that region than the 16-bit
version?

The 24 bit recording has the capability to represent the signal much more
accurately in *any* range from zero to max, than the 16 bit recording.