16 bit vs 24 bit

[parablue74]

My question here is:

24 bit is the latest technology, aside from 48 bits coming in the future. But 24 bits hold large memory wave files, which means further upgrading of computers. Now the catch i feel is that if i´m Audio Out from a 16 bit synthesiser into a 24 bit ADC soundcard, wouldn´t that render my 24 bit useless as it would only mean more empty space in the wav file. So why would i need a 24 bit if all my equipment is still base on 16 bit.

Any comments?

http://www.mp3.com.au/parablue

<font size=-1>[ Edited by parablue74 On Date _MONTHDATETIME ]</font>

 

[Enjaykayb]

Check out : http://www.digido.com/



Lots of interesting articles here about digital resolutions and bit and sample rate conversions!



Cheers!



www.satbsolutions.com

 

[Cheez]

Well, the average human being cannot tell the difference audibly between 20 and 24 bits. Some say they can tell the difference, some say they can´t. I´m going to upgrade from 20 bits to 24 bits soon. Let´s see if there´s a real difference. The argument continues...

 

[Tripper]

the old 16 vs 24. well, if youre mixing digitally, the the higer word length matters.(sample rates too..) lots of theory behind it, but the best i can understand is about the math needed to do the calculations in a digital mixing enviornment...or something..



but personally, the jump for me from 16 to 24 bit was a no-brainer. to me, the sound quality of it was worth it, until 24 bit, digital sounded tinny and harsh with no real depth.



have heard the 192 (sample rate, not word length) stuff.. not that diffrent from 96, but file size is crazy.

best i still think is 24bit, 44.1khz if meant for CD and done all digitally.. unless youre really lucky and have access to 1/2 inch..

 

[silent]

16 BIT 24 BIT? WHY DON´T U BIT YOUR DOG?

 

[boofeng]

my dog bites me!! not the other way round...

 

[dilbert]

24 v 16 bit

just a reply from this debate which i read from a email newsletter group i'm subscribing to...

"That is a good question, however your statement isn't correct. Here is a
bare-bones explanation.
It is true that CD's are 16 bit and that whatever you record in 24 bit will
eventually be dithered down to 16 in order to be played in a standard CD
player. Recording in 24 bit vs.16 bit can be night and day (usually is) in
terms of final quality. Think of those extra bits as digital headroom (dynamic range) and you will get the picture. The more you process in the digital domain the more dynamic headroom you lose (Truncated data).
With the dithering processes available nowadays you can't hear the difference between your 24 bit master and your 16 bit redbook CD after it has been dithered down. The same information recorded to 16 bit is extremely noticeable with detail monitoring.
In other words, It's not the final 16 bits that count, it is the original
recording that makes ALL of the difference."

 

[veganbleu]

very true, it's always about the original recording to begin with. So, even if your synth outputs at 16bit, the act of recording is independent of the bit size the synth is at, unless you're using a truely 1-1 digital lossless form of recording.