Correction:
Data points per bit should have read: data points per dB of dynamic 
range (I changed the math, but not the description).
So, the comparison should read:

Lets take a look at the available data points for each dB of dynamic 
range for CD quality digital audio: 65,536 (data points) divided by 96 
(dB of dynamic range) = 682.6 data points for each dB of dynamic range 
of a given sample.

Compare that to 24 Bit/ 96K digital audio: 4,294,967,296 (data points) 
divided by 144 (dB of dynamic range) = 29,826,161 data points for each 
dB of dynamic range of a given sample. And, there are more than twice a 
many samples taken! Now, we are talking about some decent resolution.

Also, my hand typed chart got wacked by the forum formatting. Hopefully, 
you get the idea.

Cheers!

Corey
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
www.baileyzone.net

On 11/22/2015 7:47 PM, Corey Bailey wrote:
> Mr. Kevil:
> Let's take a look at Bit Depth as applied to digital audio:  "Bit 
> Depth divides a given sample by its value."
> Thus:
> BIT DEPTH           DATA POINTS    DYNAMIC RANGE
>        8                                256                         48dB
>
>       16                            65,536                      96dB
>
>       24 4,294,967,296            144dB
>
> Now, lets take a look at the available data points per bit for CD 
> quality digital audio: 65,536 (data points) divided by 96 (dB of 
> dynamic range) = 682.6 data points for each bit of a given sample.
>
> Compare that to 24 Bit/ 96K digital audio: 4,294,967,296 (data points) 
> divided by 144 (dB of dynamic range) = 29,826,161 data points for each 
> bit of a given sample. And, there are more than twice a many samples 
> taken! Now, we are talking about some decent resolution.
>
> So, even though you have only 70 dB of dynamic range available for 
> those old tape recordings (before the introduction of Noise 
> Reduction), you will obviously capture much more of that available 
> dynamic range using the archival standard 24Bit/96K (Hi Rez) sample 
> rate and bit depth.
>
> The same logic applies to any of the old audio carriers.
>
> Plus, when restoration takes place, the results are less artifact 
> prone when using higher bit depths and sample rates.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Corey
> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
> www.baileyzone.net
>
>
> On 11/22/2015 3:03 PM, L. Hunter Kevil wrote:
>> A transfer of  a 1960s tape marketed in a 24/96 wrapper is what? 
>> Doesn't the resolution of the tape correspond to the equivalent of an 
>> 8- or 12-bit word? If so, what does the wrapper do?
>