<snip> Are you sure that's what you are looking for? Ah, but there are so many other differences between those effects than their bit depths. Let me guess, they sound better in the chronological order they were released in? The amount of DSP available and the quality of the code has changed too... I agree. Though, fidelity does not always equal sounding better. That's why we don't use ultra flat measurement mics to record everything. Paradoxically, the only way to avoid digital artifacts is by the use of dithering. This can be proved. There is such thing as correct dithering. Fidelity is a measure of how closely the signal you get out of your recorder matches what you put into it. You still probably won't believe me, but the fidelity of a £100 card like an audiophile 24/96 will be greater than that of 24 track 2". The audiophile will have a lower noise floor, better linearity, no scrape flutter or wow, much lower cross talk between channels, much less IMD, wider frequency response (and a more solid bass end).... but it might not sound as 'good'. I don't know if you have ever worked with tape, but you really did have to be so much more careful than digital about getting a good level to cut down noise, putting non critical tracks on 1 and 24 as they always got a bit knackered on reels and transport, recording at lower levels if the source has lots of hf content, line up and bias.... all this stuff was a total pain in the arse. Most everyone used some kind of noise reduction, unless they were pushing the tape really hard, in which case the distortion figures are laughable compared to digital.