My $0.02,
Down-sized 24 bit makes a difference to my ear, at least. I find even
just *mixing* in a 32 bit bitdepth makes a difference (even given all
16/44 original sources!).
Cuumulative rounding error, and resolution in the most quiet passages,
are the main reasons I think.
I use the analogy of image: consider JPEG versions on the cover of
NYTimes.com of pictures taken with professional [digital I'm sure]
cameras.
Even given that the most important elements are talent and the lens
(the analog of the mic), the high original resolution and CCD size
makes a marked difference. Even when the final image is only 600x400
pixels -- you can still tell it wasn't taken with a 400x600
cameraphone. :)
best,
aaron
On 1/20/06, Marc Myers <> wrote:
>
> Vicki
>
> In theory, the higher the rate of sampling and the more bits per sample
> the more accurate the recording. If all else is equal, recording at a
> higher bit rate will result in a better recording even when downrezed to
> CD quality. In practice how close you are, how quiet the environment,
> the quality of your microphone and the quality of your preamp all makes
> more difference.
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
www.quietamerican.org
83% happy
9% disgusted
6% fearful
2% angry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|