How about if I record in PCM 16/44, transfer the wav files via USB
into the computer, and the end result will be a audio CD. If my
editing is for the most part limited to cutting out unwanted
sections of a recording; cross fading the good parts back
together; and maybe a touch of eq on the preamp noise, would
converting the files up to something higher like 24bit for editing
and then back again for the CD actually make an audible
improvement on the final product?
-John Hartog
--- In Aaron Ximm
<> wrote:
> > >If there are adverse effects of such downsampling, wouldn't
that
> > >also mean that when recording for CD, a sampling rate of
> > >16bit/44.1KHz would be the best unless a much higher rate
is
> > >possible to achieve on the recording equipment in
question?
>
> My $.02, I would always use 24 bit if available but definitely not
bother
> with 48 KHz. 24 bit definitely makes a layperson-discernable
difference
> and IMO a high-quality downsample preserves some of what
is captured!
>
> Also, it's a rule of thumb that you should always downsample
at the last
> possible point -- ie, only to burn to CD. When possible, even
just
> processing and mixing at higher quality can make a big
difference.
>
> FWIW most contemporary software uses higher precision for
mixing and
> applying effects internally; to preserve the benefits of doing this
it
> makes sense to mix in high-bit rate even when working with
16/44
> recordings. What's necessary (if anything) to ensure this varies
from
> software to software of course... in my package, Samplitude,
you can
> explicitly set the mixing engine to 32 or 16 bit.
>
> best,
> aaron
>
>
> http://www.quietamerican.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|