Quote:
Originally Posted by RasCricket  He seems like a smart guy to me. He's using Audition.  thumbsup
If you care to nutshell your point for all of us dummies, I'd listen. But if youre sold on the possibility that the human ear is gonna tell between a 32 bit mixer and a 48 mixer, I for one am not so sure about that. Maybe theres a link you have for that too. I dunno.
All I do know.....is im not gonna drink the water if Im in Nebraska. Obviously it affects the mind.  |
the gentleman was claiming that AA "sounds" better because it processes it's mixer at 32-bit and "those 8 bits make a difference"
first of all 24 bit is 144 db dynamic range so yes the difference to the human ear is not worth mentioning really....
the real problem is the gentleman says that AA is better than PT because it is 32 bit mixing and PT is only 24....yet the article I linked clearly shows how PT is in fact a 48 bit mixer....
see the problem with the comments yet?
he unravels what could have been a valid point with an uninformed statement....and then goes on to say PT "sucks"
it's faulty logic....
ergo
my 32 bit mixer sounds better than your 24 bit mixer....even though your mixer is actually 48 bits....mine sounds better because it's 8 bits greater then yours (which is false)
PS the gentleman was from TX, not NE.....
I am clearly from california.....is there trouble with the water in Oregon?