Is this true?

Now I'm far from an expert, but I can hear a noticeable difference in my recordings since I switched from a 16-bit soundblaster to a 24-bit M-audio card. And the more tracks I record with, the more noticeable it all becomes. Even friends who know nothing about audio say my projects sound "much better (than they are used to hearing)."

Some people will say things like: "Well, in the end, it all goes down to 16-bit 44k anyway, so why the need to record at any higher resolution?"

In the days when cassettes dominated, I don't remember anyone saying: "Well, it all goes down to cassette in the end, so why bother recording/mastering with 2" reels?" 96/24 is superior, and I don't need anyone to confirm or refute this for me.

It just is. :)
 
chessrock said:
Now I'm far from an expert, but I can hear a noticeable difference in my recordings since I switched from a 16-bit soundblaster to a 24-bit M-audio card.

Not disagreeing with you but... keywords in that sentance: SOUNBLASTER to M-AUDIO. I think you're ignoring some variables other than 16bit to 24bit...
 
Wouldn't it be nice if switching to a 96k sampling rate was going to allow us to hear up into the 48k range? But then, we'd be like aliens 'n' stuff.
 
Back
Top