Re: 16 bit 48 all we need?

[Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill <moinsound@googlemail.com>]

Am 07.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Per Boysen:
> Please let me note that I did not mention such analog summing in my 
> answer to Mark's question. I totally ment digital summing when 
> mentioning summing as one example of digital signal processing that 
> may give a better sonic result
My point in my question was that it seemed to me that you mixed up 
sample rate (i.e. kHz) and sample depth in your line of argument, which, 
to paraphrase, went "it makes sense to use 96kHz for the editing process 
because when mixing down multiple tracks, that's better because of 
summing". My point: it makes sense to use e.g. 32IEEE instead of 16 bit, 
even if your target format is 16bit, but this has nothing to do 
whatsoever with the sample rate, because summing is done for each sample 
individually.

Other than that: I'm all for 24/48 in the recording process - 24 because 
of the obivous reasons mentioned in the article and 48 because I still 
remember ABX experiments (albeit with now outdated 80s hardware) which 
found an improvement of 48 vs 44.1, at least for trained ears (and the 
DAW calculates with 32IEEE anyway, and yes, I still believe that 64bit 
is rubbish).