Re: [ARSCLIST] Mastering to WAV

[Angie Dickinson Mickle <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

I don't think there would be much of a difference using 24 over 16 for 
spoken word/narration.  I would stick with 16.

Angie

Paul Tombleson wrote:
> Dear Angie,
> Thank you for your reply... I failed to note that "limited disk space" 
> refers to Hard disk drives not CD.  I'm not going to master to CD but to 
> WAV on hard disk drives... therefore would it be worth going to go 44.1 
> at 24?
> Many thanks for your advise
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angie Dickinson Mickle" 
> <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mastering to WAV
>
>
> > Paul,
> > Redbook CD standard is 44.1@16.  There is no need to use 48K in your 
> > situation unless this is audio for video.  The audible difference 
> > would be in the bit depth.  But in your situation you probably won't 
> > gain anything by going 24.
> >
> > Use 44.1 @ 16.  You won't have to worry about conversion or dither 
> > quality.
> >
> > Angie Dickinson Mickle
> > www.avocadoproductions.com
> >
> > Paul Tombleson wrote:
> >
> > > With the ongoing discussion about bit rate, etc for MP3, I was 
> > > wondering about another question regarding mastering rate for WAV files.
> > > I have a system (Pro Tools 5.1.1 with  888 I/O) that is older and 
> > > therefore does not allow mastering higher than 48k @24 bit depth. My 
> > > question therefore is which would be the more prudent settings to 
> > > master to WAV based on my limited equipment situation and disk space 
> > > and that 98 percent of the mastering would be for narration material 
> > > from DAT tapes recorded at 48k...
> > >
> > > 44.1 at 16
> > > 44.1 at 24 or 48 at 24.
> > >
> > > I ask this because I remember reading or hearing somewhere that using 
> > > 44.1k maybe better than using 48k due to some mathematical reason for 
> > > future transfers. I of course am more than willing to accept I 
> > > misunderstood or misread the situation. But then this is what the 
> > > LIST is for no doubt to enlighten or correct errors....LOL
> > >
> > > I thank you for your time in this regard
> > >
> > > Paul Tombleson
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date: 
> > 12/6/2005 


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date: 12/6/2005