On 2004-09-24, Mike Rivers wrote:

Why? What does that buy you?

Headroom in the dynamic range?

Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued
against something that increased your headroom in any domain?

I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit
device.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:36:22 GMT, james of tucson
wrote:

Why? What does that buy you?

Headroom in the dynamic range?

Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued
against something that increased your headroom in any domain?

I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit
device.


You don't really get headroom. You don't own a source that has 16
bits of dynamic range, let alone 24. What it does give you is a
bigger window in which to place the range you CAN supply. It lets
you be sloppy with record levels without falling into the noise floor.
Not that this isn't useful :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

In article y.com writes:

Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued
against something that increased your headroom in any domain?

Depends on how much headroom I needed and how much it cost. In a pop
music world where dynamic range on recordings is limited (literally)
to less than 6 dB, is it asking too much of the engineer to set
recording levels and internal mixing levels so that a system with a
potential dynamic range of 96 dB will allow him to make good
recordings? We didn't have insurrmountable problems with headroom back
when we were using analog tape with 30 dB less headroom. Even
classical recordings today have far less than the full dynamic range
available.

Where most people run out of headroom is at the mic preamp or the
input of the A/D converter. Why? Because they want to turn on all the
bits for fear of losing resolution. Back off a couple of dB, lose the
clipping, and even at 16 bits, you'll still have a low enough noise
floor that you can make a recording with more dynamic range that any
reasonable listener can accommodate.

I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit
device.

I wouldn't doubt it, but that may be because the 24-bit device that
you're using today is just plain better overall than the 16-bit device
you used previously. While it's true that using 24-bit resolution
allows you to be more conservative in setting levels while not running
out of headroom, if you want a certain output level of the final
product, by recording at a lower average level and boosting on the far
end, you'll boost the neighbor's leaf blower that leaked into your
room, or the barking dog, or the mic preamp's noise, or even the long
sought after room ambience.

It's your responsibility to control all of those things, and not
everyone thinks about that when using gear that "should be" better.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 2004-11-08, Mike Rivers wrote:

Depends on how much headroom I needed and how much it cost. In a pop
music world where dynamic range on recordings is limited (literally)
to less than 6 dB

I play and record classical (and classical-ish) piano and flute.

I cannot tell any difference between takes at 16 and 24 bit on the same
equipment, but I don't care. I have 24 (32) bits available in my
digital signal path, and I'm not out of disk space or anything.

Until a couple of years ago, I was using consumer cassette tape, so
everything sounds good to me :-)

I wouldn't doubt it, but that may be because the 24-bit device that
you're using today is just plain better overall than the 16-bit device
you used previously.

I'm going to agree with you, but I'm not seeing any argument that would
support buying a 16 bit recorder in this day and age. Particularly when
I already have adopted the Deltas as the only serious choice :-)

james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-09-22, Laurence Payne wrote:

The price point on the
Delta 1010 is perfect, and the hardware itself is the cat's meow.

There are better sounding options from RME and Lynx that don't cost all that much more.

james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-09-22, Laurence Payne wrote:

The price point on the
Delta 1010 is perfect, and the hardware itself is the cat's meow.

There are better sounding options from RME and Lynx that don't cost all that much more.