tubejay
10-01-2001, 10:07 PM
First off, recording a 24 bit file with 20 bit converters IS better than recording 16 bit files with 20 or 16 bit converters in most cases. There is a HUGE advantage to recording 24 bit files while only utilizing 20 of the bits. Plus, you're not using that much more space by recording 24 bit files. That really shouldn't be an issue when anymore anyway.
I still want to stick with my picture analogy though. When you increase bit depth, you get a much more dynamic picture. It's the same thing as bits with a color monitor for instance. With lower resolution monitors you could still capture red blue and green, but the detail of that red blue and green was a poor quality because there weren't enough shades of it. Let me explain a little better, true we're not increasing sample rate, so we're not capturing any more frequencies, but we're getting a much more dynamic and smooth picture. Especially with the upper frequencies because they essentially turn into triangle waves when the signal gets too quiet. With increased dynamic range you get a much smoother and accurate picture of the quiet or dynamic things in a recording. So that's why I use the picture analogy.
I guess it would make more sense if I said that 16 bit is like taking a picture in the dark without a flash. You get some detail, but because the light is too low you get a really grainy blurry image. Same as sixteen bit when the signal gets too low, you get a grainy distorted sound, especially at high frequencies. Adding 24 bits is like increasing the cameras ability to take pictures in the dark. It's actually the equivilant of turning all the lights on in the living room. You have a much more enhanced picture. 20 or 24 bit. 20 bit is tens of thousands better than 16. 24 bit is literally millions better than 16 bit.
Believe it or not folks, 16 bit sucks. CD quality, sucks. Why do you think that CD's these days are squashed, limited, steam rolled to the maximum. Well, the first reason was to limit the effect of 16 bit by maximizing dynamic range. Basically taking out the issue of things getting quiet and distorted. Second reason is, now that we expect CD's to be loud, that's the what we, the consumer expect. If we get a quiet CD now, we think it's quality is lower. The truth is, we're really getting lower quality recording because they lack dynamics. 24 bit could help change that. I hope that DVD audio takes off and soon. In fact, CD's sound so bad that people now think MP3's are OK. That's just another horrible step in the wrong direction.
I'll step down now, I hate bit reduction. Could someone make that into a bumper sticker for me??
I still want to stick with my picture analogy though. When you increase bit depth, you get a much more dynamic picture. It's the same thing as bits with a color monitor for instance. With lower resolution monitors you could still capture red blue and green, but the detail of that red blue and green was a poor quality because there weren't enough shades of it. Let me explain a little better, true we're not increasing sample rate, so we're not capturing any more frequencies, but we're getting a much more dynamic and smooth picture. Especially with the upper frequencies because they essentially turn into triangle waves when the signal gets too quiet. With increased dynamic range you get a much smoother and accurate picture of the quiet or dynamic things in a recording. So that's why I use the picture analogy.
I guess it would make more sense if I said that 16 bit is like taking a picture in the dark without a flash. You get some detail, but because the light is too low you get a really grainy blurry image. Same as sixteen bit when the signal gets too low, you get a grainy distorted sound, especially at high frequencies. Adding 24 bits is like increasing the cameras ability to take pictures in the dark. It's actually the equivilant of turning all the lights on in the living room. You have a much more enhanced picture. 20 or 24 bit. 20 bit is tens of thousands better than 16. 24 bit is literally millions better than 16 bit.
Believe it or not folks, 16 bit sucks. CD quality, sucks. Why do you think that CD's these days are squashed, limited, steam rolled to the maximum. Well, the first reason was to limit the effect of 16 bit by maximizing dynamic range. Basically taking out the issue of things getting quiet and distorted. Second reason is, now that we expect CD's to be loud, that's the what we, the consumer expect. If we get a quiet CD now, we think it's quality is lower. The truth is, we're really getting lower quality recording because they lack dynamics. 24 bit could help change that. I hope that DVD audio takes off and soon. In fact, CD's sound so bad that people now think MP3's are OK. That's just another horrible step in the wrong direction.
I'll step down now, I hate bit reduction. Could someone make that into a bumper sticker for me??