>Because no converter can reach even the 24bit resolution. In fact the best >resolution you can reach is about 21 bits and the rest three bit contains >only a random thermal noise. > >regards, >Ctirad I did not know that - but am not really surprised. >There are not any true 24bit a/d converters yet. >There are not even any true 22 bit a/d converters, perhaps in some labs. > >I think the best converters in the world manage about 20bit. (120db >dynamic range.) > >If a converter had a 24bit dynamic range (144db) and full scale was >+7db, then it would have to be able to resolve differences of 10 >nano-volts (10 one billionths of a volt). That's perhaps possible with >cryogenics. Remember each extra bit *doubles* the dynamic range! > >Real 24 bit recording should resolve from below the brownian noise floor >of air molecules hitting your ear drums to beyond the threshold of pain. > >That's why we are stuck at 24bit Well thank you for a scientific explanation of this ceiling. I guess, then, that *real* 24-bit resolution, or something very close to it, would yield what I am looking for - if it can be achieved. >Recording is about creating illusions, not fidelity. If you record an >acoustic guitar in a totally dead room with the flattest most accurate >mic and pre, in to best a/ds in the world, it sounds... ok. >Put some reverb and top end on it, a little compression, perhaps add a >little distortion with an aural exiter, or recording to tape, and people >will say 'wow, what an amazing fidelity guitar recording!' :) I agree with this to a certain extent, but the quality of the effects - or the final signal after the effects are added, is affected by the fidelity of the original signal. There is a huge difference in our guitar sound put through an 8-bit Zoom processer, an 18-bit Alesis Q2, a 20-bit Alesis Q20, and a Behringer "24"-bit V-Verb. I think it is about both - using a high-fidelity acoustic signal blended with creative, high-quality effects to create a beautiful auditory experience. >Bullshit. If you can hear the difference between a 20 bit converter >and a >20 bit one, what you hear is the difference between two >converters, regardless of the number of bits they use. And you can prove this? I would assume, that if "24-bit" converters are really only 20-21 bits, then a so-called "20-bit" converter is likely <<20 bit. I maintain that I *can* hear bit-depth difference. Are you perhaps suggesting that there exists some bit-depth threshold w/re to human hearing? What do you base your comment on? >Even 16 bits correctly dithered is better than 24 tracks on a 2 inch tape. Again, what do you base this on? Recording what? "Correctly dithered" - and you would maintain that there is some objective standard as to what constitutes this? I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by dithering, just as I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by Dolby - and I don't like it. If you think existing digital technology can already match or exceed the audio fidelity of a 24-track reel-to-reel recorder, I would very much like to know what it is, and where it is available - and I would like to hear it. -Maluvia
