Quote:

Quote:

They need to be understood without some ancient tape jockey babbling about headroom and frequency response.



Hi, all. I think I just recognized myself, there!

Actually, I completely agree with the 16/24 argument, but I think that, sometimes, we assume that better equipment makes better recordings, without acknowledging the difference made by the skill of the operator.

In my view, the differences between 16/24 are hard to detect, whilst the skill of the operator makes a huge difference. Some of us who remember working with tape, when you had a noise floor you could measure on the VUs and nothing was tracked without a compressor to preserve the s/n ratio without switching in the Dolbys, are quite happy to stick with 16 bit.

Just sayin....

ROG.



I've worked in both worlds, tape and digital - in many formats. I don't have measurement equipment at home that is precise enough to show the difference between 16 and 24 bit. What I do know is that since switching over to 24 bit, I've not had to wring my hands about trying to maximize the input range of my A/D for every track. I can be quite sloppy with it, and when I then go back and boost those low-level recorded signals, they are still doggoned clean sounding. This is not the case when doing the same practice with 16 bit. I can indeed start to hear hiss if I take a recording that I made perhaps 25 dB down in 16 bit, then boost it up 20 dB. Try that experiment for yourself.

-Scott

My Songs, photos, writing,etc.
My Sound Cloud