Quote:

24 bit is better, especially if you face clipping issues, but as far as hearing, most of us do not hear any better that 16 bit can deliver. What 24 bit gives is headroom for hot signal. Keep you recording clean and clear, and out of digital clipping and it does not really matter that much.

In the end result you are dithering down to 16 bit to burn anyway.



I agree with some points and disagree with others. Human hearing has a much wider dynamic range then theoretical 16 bit. As we get older we lose both high frequency response and dynamic range but the former goes first. I've been involved in ABX testing with various professional recording circles and even when 24 bit technology was in its infancy, it was reliably picked out over 16 bit.

You are certainly correct about more headroom - in particular for live recording where levels can be unpredictable ...and also quite important: as large number of tracks are digitally mixed, higher bit resolutions minimizes rounding errors.

The main reason folks dither down to 16 bit these days, is for CD's and CD derivatives. But this should be the last step. You will always get a better product if you start with 24-bit and then dither down in the mastering stage - then starting with 16-bit.

One other comment: With DTS-HD MA and Dolby True HD, many consumers enjoy 24/48 and 24/96 soundtracks in their homes - quite inexpensively. LOL! So unless all those folks are "audiophiles", I would suggest that calling 16/44.1 wave samples "audiophile" - is a bit of a stretch in 2011.

Cheers!

Rob