vapman
Member of the Trade: bhobuds.com
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Posts
- 8,365
- Likes
- 2,444
Quote:
It may not sound noticeably different for listening purposes, but having recorded and mastered my own recordings, I can assure you that 24 bit is essential for mastering because you can do so much more with the dynamic range. 16 bit is only good for the finished product. I'm sure with a very, very high end system you will get better results with 24 bit audio.
That being said, I like SACDs and I'm sad there's no SACD-R's.
Originally Posted by nnotis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't agree that 16 bit always sounds the same as 24. With some recordings, it certainly does. But even with the most favorable dithering settings, some of my mixes lose a bit of depth when brought down to 16 bit. Ears can be damaged by noises much louder than 100 db. But doesn't the noise need to be sustained to cause damage? At symphonic concerts, aren't there brief spikes in amplitude that exceed 100 db? Perhaps someone can chime in with specific numbers. |
It may not sound noticeably different for listening purposes, but having recorded and mastered my own recordings, I can assure you that 24 bit is essential for mastering because you can do so much more with the dynamic range. 16 bit is only good for the finished product. I'm sure with a very, very high end system you will get better results with 24 bit audio.
That being said, I like SACDs and I'm sad there's no SACD-R's.