Dan it's somewhat subjective I suppose,
But you are shedding some light on just how deeply internalized some
of the 'rules' of analog recording become.
Danny
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> david briggs, you wrote:
>
> >Im not too sure about the comment " Your S channel
> >isn't under-recorded; it should be lower."
> >Your digital recording is limited then. If you ever want to increase
> >the volume of the lower track the quality will decrease.
>
> Not in the real world. Even recording 10-20dB low, the natural
> ambience is likely to be way above the noise level of even a 16-bit
> system.
>
> >If you have recorded at the optimum level then you can always lower
> >the volume.
>
> What is optimum? A level that produces a theoretically better
> signal-to-noise ratio but no improvement in practice, or a level that
> plays back in a natural balance without adjustment? My argument is
> that turning up the S channel for better saturation might have had
> some meaning in analog tape days, but isn't necessary with the
> available dynamic range of digital.
>
> -Dan
>
|