>> The difference is the quality of the quiter bits, providing >> a more accurate depiction of the instrument being recorded. >> >> best, >> Jon > >Which is an increase in dynamic range! > >Sorry, I was trying to keep the description less technical, and more in >laymans terms, but the end result of going from 16 to 24 bits is being able >to better hear dynamic range, as opposed to frequency response. OK . .I concede. You guys are correct. I had to go re-read Bob Katz's excellent site. www. digido.com Still a little suspicious of this statement however,"24 bits will let you hear the really loud sounds without compression". best, Jon -- config-- Apple G4 Dual 800, 1.5 gig of ram, Mac OS 9.2.2, RME Hammerfall DSP/ Digiface, MOTU 2408, MOTU MTP AV (USB), Apogee WC Master, Spirit Digital 328 (digital mixer/controller), ATI Radeon AGP, ATI Rage128 (second monitor).
Message
Re: [GEN] 24 bits vs. 96K
2002-02-15 by Jonathan Christensen