Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence - digitizing standards

[Rod Stephens <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This quote is from a web site explaining Adobe Auditon's (CoolEdit 
revisited) operations:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/audio/audition/#bitdepth

I think it states the use of upsampling and downsampling in editing 
quite clearly in layman's (or laywoman's) terms.

>       Bit depth (16 or 32)
>
> Standard CD-quality audio files have 44,100 samples per second, 16 
> bits per sample. However, many of us now have 24- or 32-bit sound 
> cards and can record 32-bit audio files. These give higher quality and 
> can be downsampled to 16 bits before burning to CD.
>
> Further, Adobe indicates that highest quality is obtained by 
> upsampling your file to 32 bits if it was not already recorded at 32 
> bits, editing it, and then downsampling again to the original format.
Rod Stephens

Jeffrey Kane wrote:

> Perhaps my understanding is faulty; I'd always thought processing should be
> done at a higher resolution if possible to minimize adverse effects on the
> signal and preserve as much resolution as possible. Applying certain effects
> to 16 bit audio if editing in 16 bit resolution could result in loss of
> resolution could it not? 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alyssa Ryvers
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:42 PM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence - digitizing standards
>
> OK...so am I understanding correctly that you are transferring through 
> your converter into your computer at 16bit, but then importing it into 
> ProTools for 24bit?
>
> If this is the case, you're not "enhancing" the sound quality, but just 
> using some kind of algorithm(s) in order to get a more complex file - 
> information that was added, by the way, and has nothing to do with the 
> original.
>
> Alyssa.
> :)
>
> "If someone, holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the 
> World's Sounds should enter a great fire, the fire could not burn 
> him...If one were washed away by a great flood and call upon his name, 
> one would immediately find himself in a shallow place." (The Lotus 
> Sutra)
> On 20-Feb-06, at 10:08 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Interesting perspective. When I transfer cassettes for clients, I use 
> > 16 bit, and if they want it processed in any way, I import it to 24 
> > bit Protools sessions for the added range... Best of both worlds, I 
> > like to think.
> >
> > <L>
> >
> > Lou Judson . Intuitive Audio
> > 415-883-2689
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Mike Richter wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Lou Judson wrote:
> > >      
> > >
> > > > What about using 24 bit at 44.1 so that any noise reduction or 
> > > > processing done later is higher definition?
> > > >        
> > > Given that the best dynamic range on standard cassettes - assuming 
> > > Dolby  B in proper calibration which is highly questionable - is 
> > > unlikely to exceed 60 db, one might suspect that 16 bits is 
> > > sufficient. Of course, processing could consume several bits and one 
> > > only has half a dozen to spare (~30 db).
> > >
> > > For that potential, infinitesimal advantage, one is likely to spend 
> > > four to ten times as much to make the transfers counting both 
> > > equipment and time. Given infinite resources, a case can be made; 
> > > with a budget less than that of a typical multinational corporation, 
> > > such overkill is hard to justify even on theoretical grounds.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > --
> > > mrichter@xxxxxxx
> > > http://www.mrichter.com/
> > >      
>
>