24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! - Page 64

Please note that the above paper was read at a convention.  It is not a refereed paper published in the journal.
 

Yeah, it's flawed, but the Meyer & Moran study was pretty flawed too, which is also on their site.

 

See "debunking Meyer & Moran", Moran joins the thread and gets pretty hostile at everyone.

You don't, since microphones tend to have higher dynamic range when amplified more. That is especially true of condenser mikes and other with phantom power.

 

It's not a large difference, but it's there. So assuming you have a half decent amp and are using a condenser mike, do amplify. The idea is to have maximum gain with enough headroom.

Edited by AstralStorm - 12/11/12 at 11:12pm

Nobody ever claimed that high-rez formats aren't better suited for recording, in fact, it is considered good practice to work with 24/96 (or higher) when recording, adding effects, mixing and mastering. This is because the noise floor is lower and it is possible to alter the sound more with a high-rez format without introducing audible artifacts than would be the case with a 16/44 file.

The point everybody is trying to make here is that there is no audible improvement to using 24/96 for playback, not for recording. After the sound has been mastered, there is no audible difference between exporting it as a 24/96 file or a 16/44 file, which is why the high-rez format is nothing but a waste of space.

 

It used to be, it's not a waste of space on blu-ray, or 6TB external drives.

Then how about that: waste of money.

Yes, since you need to buy expensive super-tweeters to avoid IMD. =p

 

If 24-bit / 48 kHz becomes a standard for live concert blu-ray recordings that's fine with me though.

It is still a waste of space, since the files sound the same. Current hard disc sizes have nothing to do with this.

@kiteki: Instead of a higher format, that doesn't change anything, I'd rather see proper recording, mixing and mastering. Because in some genres we're down to 3 dB dynamic range. We could actually go for 8 bit files. -_-

Yep.

Maybe I've been doing it wrong all these years. But I guess I wouldn't have a choice because the recording was usually done out of house where they had the best mikes and mike pres, and I would do the editing and ruff mix in house on protools.

 

They have nothing to do with this, in your opinion, but in reality the larger hard-disk sizes and internet speeds of today are making 24 / 192 much more popular, since people have the space they think "difference or not, nothing to lose".

 

I guess it's like calibrating the wheels on your car at a mechanic, can they feel the difference, nope, will it make a difference nope but may as well calibrate the wheels anyway lol.

Its not an opinion, it is simple logic that states that when two files sound the same, the bigger one is a waste of space. The car analogy is also flawed as there is a rational reason to calibrate the wheels ie. maintenance of the car. Meanwhile, it is irrational to pay more for high-rez files and for larger storage to hold these files when it is scientifically evident that there is no audible improvement in sound quality.
Edited by jupitreas - 12/17/12 at 9:20am

Imagine you were a millionaire and had a sixteen bedroom mansion. Wouldn't it be a waste of space if you used one of those rooms to store the packing peanuts from each and every box you got from Amazon?