16bit in 2001 vs. 16bit a few years ago...

[the stranger]

Would the 16bit technology be better now than a few years ago?

What makes me wonder is the various 16 track digital recorders available.

Now, I'm sure the answer is probably yes due to better hardware and better software.

What I'm wondering is if somebody like myself that does a lot of music a lot of the time really needs 24bit. I like to write songs, get the ideas fleshed out, get a good recording, and then move on to the next song. I have more ideas than is probably healthy and probably ADD, so I don't usually dwell on something too long. I also tend to improvise way too much and am not likely to play something the same way twice.

 

Anyway, am I going to regret it if I go with 16bit?

Are cd's going to break on through to the 24 bit side soon?

Is 16bit dead and just being milked for what it's worth?

Does 24bit provide a substantial increase in headroom?

Does 24bit make a sizable difference when it ends up on a 16bit CD?

 

P.S. I thought it would be good to get this discussion out of dan's thread.

I've been eyeing the various models of digital recorders available.

1. The Korg D16-$1299 and probably going to drop soon due to---> (or the improved D1600-$1599/$1899w/cd-rw (16bit [16 tracks] or 24bit [8 tracks])

2. The Akia DSP16--$1899 (16/24bit, not sure of track counts per mode)

3. The Fostex VF-16-$1199 (16bit)

 

The above models lack the automation of the aw4416, of course. But, can one still make mixing a lot easier with the scene memory available on the above models?

And the Korg's make it a point to let you know of the effects capabilities, but I'm not as clear on the others.

The Korg has 8 insertions, 2 master and one overall (available at once or 11 simultaneously).

And the Korgs have the touchview display. I can see where this would be nice, but is this something that is going to stand the test of time or is it something that will wear out and render the machine useless?

[Lee Flier]

Dude, I would DEFINITELY not bother with 16 bit. The sonic difference between 16 bit audio and 24 bit is like night and day. SERIOUSLY. In fact, I personally didn't even take digital recording seriously until I first heard 24 bit.

 

It's very important to distinguish sampling rate from bit depth. The audible differences between sampling rates are very little compared to the difference in bit depth. It can't be overstated: GO 24 BIT!!

 

And yes, there is still a huge difference even if the audio eventually ends up on a 16 bit CD.

 

And yes, I think 24 bit CD's will become commonplace in the next few years. The Alesis Masterlink already sports it.

 

It doesn't matter really how much 16 bit technology has improved (and it has, some) - if the audio ain't there it AIN'T. You can't ever get it back. Simply put, the amount of sound that is "there" in 24 bit is 33% more than what's there in 16 bit. That's a lot.

 

In case you think I'm beating around the bush, what I'm really trying to say is: GO 24 BIT. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[robotobonhome.com]

I wonder when synthesizers will go 24 bit, with balanced analog, s/pdif and aes/ebu digital outs and inserts. It would seem to me that digital audio recording is more of a factor for 24 bits than synthesis? Even alot of virtual synthesizers are still 16 bit.

 

Just curious because I've been recording alot of synth tunes and everything is @16bit, but of course going into my DAW @ 24 bit in case of edits and effects processing. There is no argument that 24 bit and even high class 20 bit recording kills the finest 16 bit devices out there.

 

One other curiosity is that I've found recording first to my 1/4" Teac 3340 then dumping to my DAW @ 24 bits yields much better results than recording direct. Perhaps a Cranesong HEDD is my cure... but is the cost of 4 HEDD's feasible for small multitrack recording? At what point will digital really replace tape and the need for expensive outboard on it's own? This to me is digital's biggest flaw.

 

-rob

 

This message has been edited by robotobon@home.com on 03-02-2001 at 04:38 PM

[Lee Flier]

Rob,

 

I'm not a synth expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm guessing that the reason higher bit rate is not so critical for synths is that the synth's processors are only storing DATA about how to reproduce the audio (which the synth itself then reproduces), not the audio itself. If that makes any sense. In other words the information that can vary in a synth is very finite compared to the complex multiple waveforms of recording actual analog audio.

 

I think I may have mentioned before that I do the same thing with an old Ampex 1/4" as you do with your Teac, and the results are wonderful. A better mic pre and compressor does help digital recordings, but as you point out, that's expensive. You can score a "studio quality" 2-track (even an old one is going to be a huge improvement over a more current semi-pro model) for WAY less than a high-end pre and compressor. You will have to learn to maintain it a bit more, and you'll have to buy tape. But it's a small trade-off for me.

 

I think digital recording is improving by leaps and bounds, but it's not quite as great as the best analog yet. Part of this is a function of the technology and part of it is engineers learning how best to use the tools. Both will probably reach a pinnacle in this decade or the next, similar to the pinnacle reached in the 70's with analog recording, but it's not quite happened yet.

 

--Lee

[Dylan]

Think of it this way: Say you want a nice, juicy burger. We're talking a quarter-pounder here! So, you go buy a 1/4" of beef at the store, slap it on the grill, and a few minutes later you've got yourself a cooked burger. There's one problem though... you no longer have a 1/4" of beef. Nope, you only have an 1/8th of beef after the whole cooking process was finished. So what happened? Well, the cooking process took some of the fat and water out the burger, so your left with less. The same goes for digital recording. Say your working within a 16-bit environment. After you record your tracks, compensate for clipping by reducing the levels on both the tracking and mixing, mix-down, edit, etc, you're down to around 12-bits of real resolution. But had you started with 24-bits you would more likely have an accurate 20 or 18-bits when it was all said and done. So, if you use perfect 16-bit converters, compress the hell out of your recording while tracking and mixing, then sure, you might obtain a higher resolution. But the life of the recording will be sucked dry, and you will be left with a crappy product. If you have to use 16-bit for some reason, then you're still better off using a 24-bit converter and dithering down. But today when 24-bit recording is so damn cheap you really don't have any reason to do so until you need to dither the final master down to 16-bit. I hope this helps.

 

Dylan.

 

 

This message has been edited by Dylan Walters on 03-02-2001 at 06:51 PM

[Anderton]

16 bits is better today than it was in the past, but if you can swing the extra storage for 24 bits, it's worth it - most of the time. Frankly, very few signal sources have a 24-bit range, and most 24-bit converters actually spec out at around 18 or 19 "real" bits of dynamic range (e.t,, 105 dB or so). 20 bits means 120 dB of dynamic range, and only the most costly, high-tech 24-bit converters come close to this. The comment about 16 bits not being really 16 bits is on the money. You can automatically forget about the 16th bit, because it's always switching back and forth between one and zero, so it doesn't contribute much to the accuracy. Throw in some circuit board grounding issues, converter accuracy, and so on; it's like your 16-bit converter is NOT giving 96 dB of resolution, but more like 85 dB, or 13 or so "real" bits.

 

So if nothing else, using 24 bits gives you 16 bits the way it's supposed to sound. Although marketing hype aside, good 20-bit converters will give results that are virtually indistinguishable from 24-bit converters.

[lisencocasema.net]

Hi,

 

I don't think that the fixed digital bitrates have the future. Fixed bitrates are well fixed. Why do we need 5 mB per track per minute for 16/44.1 and 1/3 higher for 24/44.1 and so on.

 

Yes, I'm thinking about datacompression. For example: I'm recording this bass with a deep sound. Why would that eat 5 mb? Lower sounds need less bits. And I don't mean the volume, but the frequency range.

 

 

I'm not talking about MP3 here, because at the moment even the best encoders have the MP-3 artifacts using the best bitrate. No I'm talking about something new. 'Smart Compression'I would call it.

 

I'm not saying 24 bits are bad, no they are great. I love it because with 24 bits you don't need the highest input as possible. But for computers it's just not smart to use this fixed bitrate, because we have to get bigger HD's, more RAM and faster CPU's. Well this becoming less of a problem, but there are still lots of things which don't work like they should. USB for example.

 

I think it's smart to develop a 'smart compression' technique. As you can see, MPEG is very nice for video (I have to admit, video is way easier than audio, because with video you can 'miss'some frames if needed, while with audio this will cause a click).

 

Let's get smarter and not bigger http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

--

Greetings,

 

Virtual Raapie

 

 

------------------

[lisencocasema.net]

Hi,

 

There are still some things about soundcards which are not right. Yes Craig, 20 bit should give you 120 db dynamic range. I haven't found a soundcard which is giving these results.

 

I still believe that 16 bit rules, unless you're working for DVD productions. Dithering can be painfull, so don't forget http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

If you buy digital equipment, you should listen to it using a 16 bit format, because that will be your final resolution. If it sounds bad using 16 bit, it's a bad soundcard and you can't trust your mix.

 

16 bit still sounds great. CD's still sound great, yes even the old ones.

 

One thing I happen to dislike about that bitrate talk is that it's always based around theoretically figures. Always trust your ears! For me it doesn't matter if something is recorded, using 12, 16 or 24 bits. If it sounds sweet, it is.

 

I'm using a Yamaha SW1000xg soundcard. Yes, I'm using 16/44.1 settings. I just know how it will sound like in the end because I'm using a bitrate which doesn't need convertion. That's that worse thing with 24 bits, you get more dynamic range, but at the end you will miss the extra bits. Brrr.

 

Things like the TC Finalizer are tricky tools in my ears. They are being sold as high end equipment. Well, that thing can distort like a maniac!

 

TC's Finalizer or other digital limiters and mastering tools are in fact using a 'clipping bit' method which sound like compression to some, but distortion to me (well, it's is, because it uses clipping bits).

 

Want some examples: Erykah Badu's Mama's Gun (the track 'Cleva' is the worst sounding, clipping to many bits) or Scritti Politti's Anomie & Bonhomie (whole CD is clipped).

 

A friend of mine is mastering engineer and he send back all DAT's which are Finalized.

 

So my main point here is: don't think you're safe just because you're using 24 bits http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

--

greetings,

 

Virtual Raapie

 

 

------------------

[davesmithaol.com]

.....

[davesmithaol.com]

I tryed recording into my PC a 2 track mix from my digital console, 1 at 16 bit, the other at 24 bit. I had to strain my ears to hear a difference. I thought I did but they were so dam close, it was hard to tell.

 

I use a TC finalizer plus everyday. I don't get any distortion at all. It took me years to really figure this piece of gear out and start to get very good results. I'm very happy with it. I've also remastered mixes for people that were done in major mastering facilitys that wern't happy with what they did. I was able to get better results with the Finalizer.

 

I often read posts from people slamming a piece of gear while scratching my head wondering why. I've been getting great results from it, why arn't they? I can only conclude the gear is only as good as the person useing it, and how there useing it.

[staupephotmail.com]

Steely Dan's 2 against Nature is a good example of that lousey 16 bit stuff we all hate.

 

Check it out for yourself.

 

Eric

[callengowanco.com]

Robot,

 

Its funny that you asked this question concerning 24bit synths and samplers. I was prompted to ask the same question after I bought a new emu E4 and a kurz PC2X (which does have 24 bits spdif out), and found that both use 7 year old 16bit samples from the E3 and K2000 library respectively. The explanation I got from kurzweil was that bit depth relates to headroom, and because most PCM samples are so heavily compressed in the production of the rom sets the extra headroom offered by 24 bit samples just isnt required. When it is required the synthesis/effects engines are used. As far as kurz was concerned, they stated that because of rise in quality onboard effects processors you will see a lot of new synths being equipped with 24 bit digital outs(PC2X and E4 Platinum being the first) , merely for the translation of the 24 bit effects processors, but most of these new synths will still contain 16bit PCM samples because of the memeory trade off. They do anticipate a new generation of samplers with 24bit A/D converters and 24 bit outputs and mucho memory. But the downside is, we will probable go back to the days of the 10K-12K sampler, ala the EIII and the such!

[Marvster]

Sorry to cross-post, but check out Keyboard's June '98 issue for a great primer on bit and sampling rates, dithering, and more. It addresses the 24/96 issue specifically, and was written in part by the now famous Big Cheese of EQ, Mitch Gallagher.

 

The only thing about the article that really no longer applies is the listening test (done with some of the very first 24/96 gear and software, well before that type of stuff was tweaked).

 

Marv

[KenElevenShadows]

I woulld think that a really high-quality 16-bit A/D or D/A would still be preferable to a cheap, lousy, or poorly-designed 24-bit A/D or D/A. Just a thought. Carry on...

 

------------------

Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/nectar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

music*travel photos*tibet*lots of stuff

"Sangsara" "Irian Jaya" & d i t h er CDs available!

http://www.elevenshadows.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[robotobonhome.com]

Thanks to you all for helping me with me ponderings. Im' still not too clear on the synth thing, but that's just cos I'm a guitar player.

 

I bought a Midiman Delta 1010 last May, and I was quite taken with it in comparison to my old Sblive! Value. A head to head comparison at 16/44.1 of the Delta to the Live is sickening. The Delta cleans house. But I understand all about A/D D/A converters, and especially the importance of a properly laid out power circuit. The clock is also of the utmost importance, hence the success of devices such as the Aardsync. It really makes a difference in the post house.

 

However, even with all this precision in clocks and clean power, an AKM converter is an AKM converter. They're pretty shitty. That Delta 1010 cost me $600, and the total part cost is around $150 if you don't buy in bulk. If there was a micro circuit shop near by I'd have all the converters switched with the pin-compatible Crystal converters, which are by all respects superior. But that's not likely to happen. Converter technology is decent, but none of them are very good. Not Apogee or Lucid. Cranesong's HEDD is likely the most cutting edge of them all, but at $2000 or more for 2 channels, forget about it. And you're buying simulated degradation of the signal. What gives?

 

Machines aren't human. Tape machines are full of lovely imperfections that agree with the style of music I play, and lends to the recording process in a positive way. Digital almost puts out what you put in. That's all one could ever say about it.

 

To lisenco@casema.net: you could easily use the Nyquist effect to your advantage when you don't care to give up storage for a full bitrate/samplerate recording. The Nyquist frequency is 1/2 of the sample rate, as you may know, and if your software allows multiple samplerate playback, then go for it! It works fine for bass and so-so for guitar (I believe that the harmonic nature of guitar needs the 'psycho-acoustic' frequencies found in high samplerate recording). And 8khz (4khz cutoff) sample rates rock for nintendo style synth lines.

 

-rob

[davesmithaol.com]

Staupep, I agree about the 2 aginst nature CD. I thought sonicly it was pretty bad. I read that Roger mixed to an alesis masterlink. It probebly has the same converters as an adat in it. With the access he has to all of the best converters available he used an alesis. Hard to believe. That album is sonicly dead, and so must be the ears of the people that voted it as best engineered album of the year. I have lost total respect for the "grammy's".

[aeon]

originally posted by robotobon@home.com:

I wonder when synthesizers will go 24 bit, with balanced analog, s/pdif and aes/ebu digital outs and inserts.

 

A number of synths have been shipping with 24-bit D/A coverters and 24-bit S/PDIF for some time now. Sadly, the digital I/O is near-useless without a word-clock input.

 

originally posted by Lee Flier:

I'm not a synth expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm guessing that the reason higher bit rate is not so critical for synths is that the synth's processors are only storing DATA about how to reproduce the audio (which the synth itself then reproduces), not the audio itself. If that makes any sense. In other words the information that can vary in a synth is very finite compared to the complex multiple waveforms of recording actual analog audio.

 

Actually, it didn't make any sense. All digital audio systems only store data that represents the audio, not the audio itself, so whether the sound source is a coded algorithm or a quality mic pre, greater bit depth equals better sound (assuming quality code and outboard in the given examples). Also, the waveform path in a modern digital synth, while finite in the nature of its possibilities, is complex enough that describing it as finite in comparison to sampled analog audio is near meaningless.

 

originally posted by callen@gowanco.com:

...because of rise in quality onboard effects processors you will see a lot of new synths being equipped with 24 bit digital outs(PC2X and E4 Platinum being the first)

 

Huh? The Waldorf Q and E-mu Audity 2000 both have 24-bit digital outs, and both shipped long before (2-3 years) either of the mentioned devices.

[Curve Dominant]

First of all, cool thread y'all.

 

If DAW's have 24 bit converters (and the AW and the VS do), it would make sense that synthes would be 24 bit. No?

 

It would be interesting to know if FireWire MIDI addresses/solves/has no bearing on - this dilemma. It's the MIDI 411 + audio on one hot pipe. One would think that some standardizati0n i.e. conversion rate would establish itself.

 

What about 24-bit mics? Now, don't get me wrong: I use SM57's. But is there a future in digital mics?

[robotobonhome.com]

I think Beyer Dynamics has a 20bit digital mic. I have no idea what it sounds like though, and it only has an AES/EBU out.

 

Hey Curve, since you're into firewire stuff, have you heard about 1394b? It's sposta be neat-o. I personally am hangin on PCI-X to lead me to the glory land, but I'll take some nifty firewire modular stuff along the way!

 

Ooo and don't forget to check out fibre channel, which is already in heavy use as a storage medium in post houses, but could also bear fruit as an i/o interface for audio. Current spec is 2Gbit http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

-rob

[Uh Clem]

My K2600 has digital outs - how cool I thought - until mucking around with it led me to discover that all it is doing is feeding the same analog out to an internal AD - 'scuse me, but I'll do my own conversion, thanks but no thanks. I get way better sound out of it running it into some passive Radial DIs and then into Apogees.

 

Anyone know of examples of synths that DEFINITELY do not do this? That is, the sound coming out never goes analog 1st and into an internal AD converter?

[hiraga]

Stevepow, that's justabout the lammest way to get a digiout, I've ever heard off.. Did Kurzveil really do that??? Bet they charges a hefty sum of money for that 'digi option'...

 

On a side note, I've often heard people say (in the digiblah vs anal debate), that ; "it's gonna end up on digital (CD) anyway, so why not just track'n'mix'master in the digital domain? Makes perfect sense!"..

 

Yeah, right. I predict loudspeakers to be analog at least twenty years from now on. Build in amps and converters don't make 'em digital, imho.

[BoldRuler]

Greetings!

I'm new to this forum, but not to music, recording, computers, and certainly not life! Life is GOOD! anyway, I am new to digital recording, My primary goal at this time is to enter into the _?___?___?__ world of voiceover...

I'm running a Shure KSM32 into a dbx286a then to my macclone running ProTools Free... no I don't own a gun, but seriously folks, as it relates to this topic, PTFree when launched asks me (even though my hardware has 16 bit a/d) to select 16 or 24 bits. If I select 24, will I hear any improvement when I bounce to disk? Is it worth forgoing import of any file created at less than 24 bits? Is there any shareware out there to resample 16 to 24 bits?

Thanks!

[dansouth]

Originally posted by davesmith@aol.com:

Staupep, I agree about the 2 aginst nature CD. I thought sonicly it was pretty bad. I read that Roger mixed to an alesis masterlink. It probebly has the same converters as an adat in it. With the access he has to all of the best converters available he used an alesis. Hard to believe. That album is sonicly dead, and so must be the ears of the people that voted it as best engineered album of the year. I have lost total respect for the "grammy's".

 

Um, I think Staupep was being facetious. What he was trying to say was that while people on this forum are dismissing 16 bit digital audio as a dead technology, fine recordings are still being made in the format. I did not find Two Against Nature to be particularly inspiring, but that's not the fault of its production or the equipment that was used. I just didn't care for the songs. I would challenge anyone who contributes to this forum (except Dave R.) to play for me a recording in any format that sounds better - in terms of sheer sound quality - than 'Two Against Nature', Donald Fagan's 'The Nightfly' or Yes '90125', all available on the venerable 16-bit, 44.1kHz CD format, the latter two recorded nearly 20 years ago.

 

Now everyone is wanking to this 96k nonsense. Unless you're one of the top engineers in the world, recording acoustic sources ONLY with the finest mics available in a hellofa good sounding room, 96k is not going to make a difference in how the final recording sounds. Roger himself has called 96k a waste of money.

 

Speaking of Roger, he mixed Two Against Nature to a MasterLink at 44.1k, 24 bit word length, but I sincerely doubt that he used the onboard converters. I hope that all of you have noticed that the MasterLink has AES/EBU connectors on the back.

 

Dave, I will agree with you that the Finalizer is a tool that you have to get to know before it pays dividends. Unfortunately, it suffered from a lot of hype when it first came out. I read a review that essentially said it was Bob Ludwig in a box. How stupid! The Finalizer is like a really good knife. If used properly, it can help you do many things. Improperly, it can slice your tracks to ribbons.

 

I have not used the Korg D16, but it has been hailed as one of the best sounding, most full featured, easiest to use of the portable digital studios. If I didn't need a lot of sends and returns, I would use one on a project. At the prices that it's going for these days, it's a real bargain. 24 bit audio is great, and it DOES make a difference, but it's not a difference that everyone needs. It sounds as though Dr. D. could get by with a D16. It would be far, far, far superior to any of those MiniDisc recorders, and I'm sure it sounds better than most of the computer audio interfaces (2408, etc.).

 

My new motto is: Stop Counting Bits and Make Some Music!

 

No, wait, that's too polite. How about: It's the SHIT, Not the Bits!

 

Yeah, that's better!

[the stranger]

Great info.

 

The D16 and D1600 both allow you to do 24bit at a reduced track rate, so I think this is really going to be the way to go. As for the reduced track rate: I'm working with 4 now, so 8 tracks at 24bit will still be a vast improvement. And 16 tracks at 16bit will be nirvana. Not to mention, I've gotten to be quite proficient at the "bounce" so I'm betting I could get more than just those 8 tracks at 24bit. I'm betting I could get 14 tracks at 24bit (of course, what method/s I use to mix those 8 down to two will have an effect and of course, that mix I bounce better be a keeper! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif -of course, that's what backing up is all about).

 

Plus, I'm cranking out stuff at a fairly quick rate. I don't tend to linger on one song very long. I need something that is going to be intuitive to use. I'm sure there is going to be a bit of a learning curve, regardless of what digital device I choose to get, but like Dan said, it's the shit, not the bits. I want to make music, not spend valuable time exploring a million and nine options. (I do enough of that with the damn computer) http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[hiraga]

Dansouth, I think Roger did say he used the internal Masterlink converters.. he also said 96kHz multitracking is a waste of money and time..

 

There's something *wrong* with digital, but I'm pretty sure 96kHz ain't gonna help one bit (sorry for the pun..)

 

The digital mic, the Beyer, is a novel idea. Soon, everything is digiblah, and DSP will be the only way to alter a signal.. *urggghh*.

 

Well, it's all gonna end up being played through analog loudspeakers, so why not stick to that ??

[stratman_dup1]

Originally posted by hiraga:

Well, it's all gonna end up being played through analog loudspeakers, so why not stick to that ??

 

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ROTFLMAO. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[hiraga]

Well, it's the same lame mantra the digiblah headz have been preaching for quite some time.. I'll bet they wished they we're born with digital ears as well..

[Anderton]

<>

 

Case in point: I remember tests done on a 12-bit Emu Emax and a 16-bit Casio FZ-1 sampler. The Emax actually had better dynamic range due to its much lower noise floor. I think a lot of 24-bit gear is really marketing hype; when you look at the specs, you're not getting anywhere near 24 bits of real resolution. BUT there are some good 24-bit converters (and I would say that MasterLink's are pretty darn good).

 

In an earlier post someone mentioned taking their digital mixer out into 16 and 24 bit media and not hearing any difference on playback. But there are too many variables here...was the console truly 24-bit? Did it dither on the way out to 16 bits?

 

The most interesting comparison is if you take something that was recorded at "pure" 24 bits (converters, processors, etc., all the way through the signal chain) and burn it on to a CD at 16 bits, vs. taking something that was recorded at "pure" 16 bits throughout the system and burned to a CD at 16 bits. The 24-bit one will indeed sound better, all other things being equal, because the lower bits have more accurate resolution.

 

Then again, the way most music is mastered these days, you only really need 4 bits anyway .

[Master Zap]

some) - if the audio ain't there it AIN'T. You can't ever get it back. Simply put, the amount of sound that is "there" in 24 bit is 33% more than

what's there in 16 bit. That's a lot.

 

Just being anal but, 24 bits is actually 256 times more than 16 bit. Thats 25600%, not 33%. Besides you meant 50% http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

/Z