>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?
Dan's right: "Not Likely".
Only if you were going to process and mix a number of channels might it be
worthwhile to convert each source to something like 24 bits and 48
KHz. This is sometimes done for production level music stuff.
It might be interesting to compare results in doing heavy noise-reduction
in Audition, for example, between staying at 16 bits and 44.1KHz, and first
converting to 24B/48K. Maybe I'll try that if I have a good candidate.
I'm hoping to field record at 24Bits/48KHz and only in the very last step
convert/dither down to 44.1 . But I'm spoiled with today's gear, and the
last couple of years of recording music on many separate tracks at 24B/48K
and mixing/processing it later.
For my 70th birthday (in a WHILE..) I'm going to take my archival Magnecord
PT-6 out of it's box and rejuvenate it, and make a few totally analog
recordings for my Grandchildren.
Jeezum, old guys get so boring...
Regards, Terry King ...On The Mediterranean in Carthage, Tunisia
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|