Hmmmm...perhaps I should check my pricing on the n00b pages, thanks for the heads up.
Ahhh, I get it now - sure, I can understand how from a future planning standpoint the Mic2496
might be a good way to go. But as 24-bit recorders hit the market (some day!) , I suspect we'll see additional stealthy 24/96 pre/ADC options hit the streets. They might be better than the Mic2496, they might be worse, who knows. There's certainly something to be said for it's availability *now*! Might be a a while - possibly forever - for other units to hit the market.
But, IMO, it's a poor choice to use the Mic2496 if you're going to truncate the word-length, as I'll explain in my disagreement with your statement:
You are not using the mic2496 to its full capacity, yes. However, 99% of tapes out there are still 16-bit meaning your tapes won't be inferior to nearly all of the tapes currenlty being produced out there.
Not true!! Not all 16-bit sources are created equal. There's a BIG difference between a native 16-bit source or 24-bit source properly dithered to 16-bits and a 24-bit source truncated to 16-bits.
I just performed a listening test on a 24/44 file. I converted the file to 16-bit two different ways: dithered with CEP, and truncated (again with CEP - truncation is truncation, I believe, whether it's performed on the JB3 or in software). The difference to my ears between the dithered and truncated files was
not subtle. And that's simply playing back over my computer playback system, the differences would be even more stark on a proper playback system. So, IMO, a 24-bit recording truncated to 16-bits is definitely inferior to a properly dithered or native 16-bit recording. Which, IMO, should rule out anyone using the Mic2496 with the JB3 or any other 16-bit recording device.