This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks are panning the 4K push

> MB I wouldn't ever add an audio filter and render at 16 bits, even if the source was 16 bits

Please enlighten me.
I'm deaf beyond 9Khz, but i concider myself a decent tech (with a bit of understanding of uncompressed sound. I can make a sound with a HEX editor alone...)
24 bits means 3 bytes of volume data PER SAMPLE.
This means, increasing the bit depth you increase the dynamic range of your soundfile. But it has nothing to do with the 'roundness/softness/sparklingness' of the sound.
With 24 bits, the only reason for a gain knob on the sound recorder is to do a 'pre-level' for post.
The dynamic range is so high there is no technical reason to adjust it if the recording level does not clip before the mic itself will overload.

Now please explain me what can go wrong with a normal 16 bits recording if you add an effect and render to 16 bits, that would not happen in 24 bits
(and yes, the next step will be a double blind listening test, bets are open.)

Bouke

VideoToolShed
van Oldenbarneveltstraat 33
6512 AS NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands
+31 24 3553311
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkB
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:11 PM
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: More folks are panning the 4K push

You're asking editors about sound quality? ;)

Although we might not work at 96k, I assume many have changed from 16-bit to 24-bit. 16 bits might be adequate for final delivery, but it's audibly inferior for processing and mixing. I wouldn't ever add an audio filter and render at 16 bits, even if the source was 16 bits. Many location recordings are done at 96k; sound designers and mixing engineers routinely work at 24/96 or higher.

Assuming all the mixing (and some of the recording) is done at higher res, a 16/48 down-conversion for final delivery will be audibly indistinguishable from a 24/192 source to most people on most systems. But a good recording engineer in a good studio will certainly hear the difference after down-converting.

In that respect, it's very much like 4k vs. HD.

Take care -- Mark Block

--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Job ter Burg (L2B)" <Job_L2@...> wrote:
>
> Like Super Audio-CD? Any of you working with 96KHz or 192KHz audio? Was MP3 better than the CD?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]