Freebase Dali

So this is more a request for 24bit availability then? I can respect that, not that it makes a worthwhile difference after the track is mastered.
Incorrect. Bit depth might have something to do with dynamic range because of the much higher headroom, but it has nothing to do with audio quality at the recording stage. Most people record at 24bit anyway. I know I do. I just dither and truncate down to 16 in the mastering process, because you can still have great dynamics with 16 bits, provided you don't drive up your gains and over-compress, which is purely dictated by how you set your levels and the compressor(s).

What DOES (objectively) affect quality in terms of audio data captured is SAMPLE RATE. CD quality standard is 44.100khz, which basically means the analog material being recorded is digitally sampled in "slices" 44,100 times a second. Think about this in the same way you think of frames per second (let's say, 30 fps) in a movie, where it's actually composed of still images that are captured and play back at a rate as to give the impression that the images are in motion.

An audio engineer can record in higher sample rates and effectively sample more data, which means more of the digital material itself is more accurately representative of the analog material. The debate arises, however, in how far one can go before the human brain can notice an improvement. Generally, most agree that going much higher than 48khz is unnecessary for general-purpose listening, however many audio interfaces (including my own) go up to 96khz, but this all gets converted down to 44khz prior to exporting a master anyway, for compatibility purposes. The theory is, that it's better to capture at a higher sample rate, because conversion down to a lower sample rate is preferable to the audio slices never being there at all.
I'm aware that 24bit recording is commonplace. I record at that bit depth myself. What you are unaware of is the fact that when you record in 24bit, a lot of that headroom goes unused. 24 bits of headroom does not mean you can hear the lowest bit, all the way up to the highest, nor would you want to, as the lowest audio would be imperceptible, and the loudest would be over-limiting and causing massive amounts of digital distortion. This is one of the reasons why, when recording in 24bit, it's generally advised for the lowest parts of the audio to peak around -24 decibels (for noise floor considerations) and the highest parts to peak no more than -6 decibels (for headroom considerations) with the average needing to dance between -18 and -12 decibels. This gives you plenty dynamic range, which, depending on the style of music, will probably be compressed to various differences, as applicable.

If I were recording a live orchestra, I'd still be able to maintain virtually the same dynamic range after converting to 16 bit (assuming I didn't compress), because the level differences, as they are applicable to human hearing and practicality, are completely within the scope of 16bit music. 24bit music is not preferred because of some arbitrary "better quality" factor, as bit depth doesn't affect it. It's preferred because it allows more room to accidentally record beyond 16bit depth without hitting a decibel ceiling and introducing distortion irreversibly into the saved material that is to be mixed. Recording at 24 bits simply gives you a wider level margin that can be reduced to appropriate listening dynamics in the mix without being stuck with over-limiting mistakes at the recording stage.
And the main point I'm trying to get across is that converting to 16bit audio has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with how much compression is applied to audio in the mixing and mastering stage, as to maximize the RMS level of the audio, aka, the "perceived loudness". 16bit audio can accommodate excellent dynamics. If I apply the same, over-compression to one mix, and export it as a 24 bit wav, and apply that very same compression and export it as a 16 bit wav, there will be absolutely no difference in dynamic level. Guaranteed. So, it should be obvious that bit depth has nothing to do with loudness wars.
Just watched it, and if that's what you mean in regard to bit depth, then you are unwittingly agreeing with everything I've said. That video is explaining the effects of compression in the mixing and mastering stage. It is not talking about 16bit vs 24bit audio.
I'm not sure how knowledgeable you are in the technical side of audio engineering, but I can tell you right now that your gripe (and the gripe of the Loudness War opponents, which I also agree with) deals with compression practices, not bit depths. If you are unaware of what I mean when I say "compression", I'm not talking about converting down from 24 bits to 16 bits. I'm talking about either an analog, or digital, or software digital compressor that is used in a mix or a master that receives the signal and limits the highest peaks to a certain level so that it can raise the lowest parts more without the entire song going over that limit. That's (limiting) compression, and it is irrelevant to bit depth, except for where you set the upper limit and whether it will introduce digital distortion if you pass it.
Compression is used in different ways, for different effects. Vocals are often compressed so that there is a more even level than the original recording.
Drums too.
Bass, all the time.
Mixes, all the time.
Mastering, all the time.
The problem is how hard this compression is being applied. It has been around for ages and ages, before "loudness wars" were ever even an issue. The issue is that, over time, people began to use this compression in less and less subtle ways, until we get to today, where virtually all the dynamics in a song is lost because of such aggressive compression.

Again, this has nothing to do with bit depth, and everything to do with today's in-mix/mastering common compression practices. (converting 24bit audio to 16bit audio is not compression in this sense, it's truncation of bits. And if you do it correctly, it's truncation of UNUSED bits, regardless of the practical dynamic level that lives in that bit range, of which 16bit is definitely capable, and you can even consult your favorite digital 16bit oldie of which you approve of its dynamics)

Anyway, I'm not sure if this whole thing is you not understanding what is actually involved in this loudness war, and why 24bit is used in the first place, and why bit depth is irrelevant to the loudness war, and why 24 bits offer no perceptible advantage in terms of dynamics in any practical application.

Thanks for the debate, though.
I really do enjoy talking about this stuff!

__________________