Damn. Discussion is going the right direction with smart talk again, triggering me to join it again.
I must offer you my respect Farview. You're one of the rare ones here who knows what he's talking about within the technical side of this subject.
Since bits have to do with dynamic range, you can make the somewhat awkward analogy of the dynamic range of analog being equivalent to the dynamic range of a digital signal with a certain number of bits.
Glad you explain that. That's were i was made a fool of when i said that.
That's what digital sound is develloped for. Imitating analogue as good as possible. A great invention.
The idea that since an analog signal doesn't have bits or samples (and therefor a sample rate), it has unlimited bits and samples is erroneous.
That's correct too. Accept (sorry) for the bit part.
Analogue has no bits. Bits is a 100% digital principle. It's the digital 0 and 1 series. And therefore not continuous.
Everyone who knows how analogue sound works and knows how amp transistors/tubes work know that both the electric stearing as the amplified signal are a constant. And NOT a serie of bits/points/vectors (looking like a line).
Analogue is unlimited in it's signal because it has NO bits but it's 'curve line' is constant, continuous.
No matter how many bits/dots (digital) you have in line, it will never ever equal the quality of a continuous line (analogue).
Since sample rate sets the highest frequency that can be recorded and reproduced, an unlimited sample rate would mean that any frequency can be recorded, which is not true of audio recording equipment.
Sample rates are, digital sound indeed is limited. By it's bits, chosen and set in the settings.
16bit, 24bit, 32bit float.
Analogue isn't limited by bits. 16bit will never equal 24bit quality, let alone unlimited analogue.
Since bit depth in digital set the dynamic range, an unlimited number of bits would mean an unlimited dynamic range, which clearly doesn't exist in analog.
As this "unlimited bits" ain't right it DOES limit the dynamics. It can't go higher/deeper than the settings which is the max. 16bit will never equal 24bit quality, let alone unlimited analogue.
And that's were we're back at what i said about the expensive mics.
As one uses the settings which are the lowest (16bit/44.1khz) for the dynamics
as you explain confirming too, and with that limiting those dynamics, what is the purpose then form a wide and deep dynamic (most expensive) microphone?
And what would be the result of sound editting (plugins like reverb, compressor) if the core signal already is limited by those lowest settings.
Not even starting about re-using low dynamics/settings im- and exports over and over again (loss on loss on loss...). Although DAW internally works in 32bit float, a 16 bit import will never become 32bit float. Although DAW internally works in 96khz, a 44.1khz import will never become 96khz.
A $1500 mic recording at lowest settings (16/44.2), using high quality mic on low quality settings not using the (expencive) mics high specs in full would be stupid. It would be money throwing away cause then a cheaper mic with some lesser specs/dynamics would do the same job easily.
In this case it would be no more then an expensive hype.
So my vision and advise to use higher settings (laught away as foolish) isn't that stupid at all.
To bad i will loose anyway. Not on subject, but as "stupid ignorant newbie" against popularity. Thosefewoffwhichidon'tgivenames will hate and bully me either way.