Gearslutz.com - View Single Post - Anyone Using K-14 Metering?

Kiwiburger · 31st May 2006

DCollins - all I can do is shake my head and wonder if my english skills aren't good enough or something ...

I don't wish to argue - just curious as to how I can improve my communication skills, because the idea that Mike is expressing is so simple I fail to see how I can explain it any better.

Let's assume we are talking about a 16 bit CD. If you have very quiet audio information - say around 48dB, then that is only going to use around 8 bits of the total 16 bits. For the pedants - all 16 bits will be 'used', but only 8 of them would be significant. So the signal will have all the graininess of an 8 bit sample - while still in the relatively noiseless digital domain. Once it's converted, it's then buried in the analog noisefloor as well.

I don't think anyone would argue that 24 bit sound is better than 16 bit sound, and that 16 bit sound is better than 8 bit sound. It doesn't take much reasoning to realise that if you don't make full use of the available bit depth resolution, you are throwing away quality.

I think most people recording digitally do realise this, and tend to try to record too hot. That's when you run into the limitations of analog - the top 6dB range of many cheap consumer converters is very distorted - measurably and audibly.

He's saying the same things that are being said by other people, just different words.

He's not wrong.

31st May 2006	#130
Kiwiburger Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,075	DCollins - all I can do is shake my head and wonder if my english skills aren't good enough or something ... I don't wish to argue - just curious as to how I can improve my communication skills, because the idea that Mike is expressing is so simple I fail to see how I can explain it any better. Let's assume we are talking about a 16 bit CD. If you have very quiet audio information - say around 48dB, then that is only going to use around 8 bits of the total 16 bits. For the pedants - all 16 bits will be 'used', but only 8 of them would be significant. So the signal will have all the graininess of an 8 bit sample - while still in the relatively noiseless digital domain. Once it's converted, it's then buried in the analog noisefloor as well. I don't think anyone would argue that 24 bit sound is better than 16 bit sound, and that 16 bit sound is better than 8 bit sound. It doesn't take much reasoning to realise that if you don't make full use of the available bit depth resolution, you are throwing away quality. I think most people recording digitally do realise this, and tend to try to record too hot. That's when you run into the limitations of analog - the top 6dB range of many cheap consumer converters is very distorted - measurably and audibly. He's saying the same things that are being said by other people, just different words. He's not wrong. __________________ My carbon footprint is bigger than yours.