Whoa there, that’s an audiophile can of worms similar to analog vs digital, mac vs pc, etc… 
The jury is not out on that, it’s an endless cyclical discussion… 
Regardless, if it doesn’t matter for OT, why would there be not only one but 2 settings for it?
(by two settings I mean playback and recording)
Imma trust my ears on this one and leave it at 24.
Because if they didn’t people would endlessly shout “No 24-bit playback? INSANITY.”
Haha I’m sure there are lots of reasons. All I know is that it seems pretty clear from the experiments done that we can’t actually hear a difference between a 24-bit file and a 16-bit file. Even if you “feel” like you can.
…i guess it might depend on what you will do after the sampling, applying effect such as comp might give sonic advantages @24bit. Although the main differences that we might hear between the two is stereo vs mono-mix and that the eqing of the DT is having a tendency to boost higher frequencies.
agreed
So Elektron putting 24bit on their samplers, Tidal offering 96/24 streams (Which I can assure you makes a difference) and autechre offering 24bit wavs are all in it for the lulz?
kinda yeah 
honestly read that article I linked up above. it’s pretty interesting (although dense, very dense)
he starts out about Apple trying to do 192 (!!) 24 and how it’s just a waste of space and totally unnecessary
Oooookkkkk.
I mean is it that hard to believe? When you consider all the policies that have been made based off totally bunk studies or by misconceptions from the general public about what to do/what a problem is…All that stuff exists in audio world, too. Lots of myths and tall tales.
I mean that could be applied the other way too: science later proving false what science had proven as true…
Anyway. I hear (perhaps via delusion, I admit…but I don’t think so) that 24 bit on the OT is better than 16, 24 bit wavs are better than 16 bit flacs, and 96/24 streams are better than 16/44.
Im just going to go with my ears in this case and not worry myself about it.
No, no, no, it isn’t. By recording at 192kHz/24bit and pitching it down to exactly 47,819715 kHz, you can hear the whisperings of ghosts (kinda otherworldly social media, but as audio stream). That’s common knowledge among audiophile shamans.
Except human beings (generally speaking) can only hear from 20Hz to 20kHz. So unless a new breed of superhuman is born that can hear past those boundaries, I don’t think these tests will be proven false.
But hey once we become cybernetically-enhanced creatures and can also see IR and UV and X rays count me in–I’ll gladly listen to 192kHz 
I’m not arguing for 192. I’m arguing for 24.
The same argument against (consumer grade, listening) at 192 is the same argument against 24.
As he points out though, 24 has room for us folks working with manipulating audio. It helps keep the noise floor low and helps us with headroom…But not much else. It only “sounds better” in that there’s less noise. And even then, that’s with particular circumstances.
Same dude, totally worth watching.
Durn durn durn…
Another thread bites the dust…
Durn durn durn…
Another thread bites the dust…
And another thread gone, another thread gone, another thread bites the dust!
LOLLL 24BIT IS OBVIOUSLY BETTER!!
~sniggers~
My daughter wants a Walkman. I explained the differences and she still wants one. Proud dad.
It’s cool. I’ll be over here with my golden ears and yall be over there with your science. 
“Science vs Peception”