These are my reasons for staying in 16 bit and not 24
1) because none of the music hardware that i'm tracking is 24 bit. <--- is this entirely logical? I've already read that nyquist article http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf
which explains different sample rates n such.
I also understand that 24 bit 44.1 gives you more bit - depth, but i'm not entirely sure what bit-depth means to the ears.
2) I'm also unsure about the maximum number of tracks I could record with my PC's hardware.
At the least I would like to track the two 1/4 left and right stereo outs of the EIII , and the 8 outs of the mpc 60 . So thats ten 1/4 inputs i need to track, which is why i thought about going with the rme ff800.
Idealy I would like to track the 16 mono outs of the EIII because there is an analog filter for each out, and the 8 outs of the mpc 60 mk1, which is why i'm considering daisy chaining delta 1010's for twenty four 1/4 inputs.
3) Another reason for tracking at 16 bit 44.1 khz is just to maximize tracking ability and minimize the space it takes up on the harddrive. I'm not too keen on buying another computer until intel's conroe cpu's have been out and their prices have dropped sufficiently
f you are recording at 16 bit 44.1 khz with a 24 bit soundcard will the 16 bit recording sound similar enough on say a high end rme ff800 compared to a delta 1010 ? <---- still need someone to answer that Question hopefulyl somemone who has compared a high end and low end 24 bit soundcard and recorded with both at 16 bit 44.1