4 ms·
I could see it as part of a pipeline/workflow where having that dynamic range lets you not worry about losing meaningful information through everything, even if
by simcop2387 4y ago
I could see it as part of a pipeline/workflow where having that dynamic range lets you not worry about losing meaningful information through everything, even if you're going to compress it and take it back to 16bit cd quality at the end. Being able to losslessly store the results of each step in a FLAC file should be better than raw data since it'll be compressed and easier to manage then. That said, at the edges of that I totally agree even 24-bit can be questionable there since a lot of the analog side doesn't have a noise floor that would let it be meaningfully used.
- klodolph 4y ago> That said, at the edges of that I totally agree even 24-bit can be questionable there since a lot of the analog side doesn't have a noise floor that would let it be meaningfully used. It's not that hard to beat 16-bit, which is 96 dB, using easy-to-find, off-the-shelf equipment. One example scenario is that you are recording something but you don't have a precise idea of how loud it will be ahead of time, so you record at low levels and rely on 24-bit capture to give you headroom above and noise floor below. Trying to capture at 16-bit can, in practice, be annoying and difficult because it is more likely that you will ruin takes by setting the gain wrong.
- hunter2_ 4y agoThe 55% compression ratio (or whatever the case may be) seems much more useful at the end (where it nearly doubles how long a consumer can listen before swapping media) then along the way (where it nearly doubles how much raw material a studio can capture before swapping media).