In Reply to: Re: Analog recording on DAT posted by Marantzguy on February 22, 2006 at 10:32:08:
Hi Richard,Yes, I've done comparisons of music recorded at 44.1/16 and music
recorded at 96/32 and converted to 44.1/16. The differences are subtle
but (IMHO) quite audible and depend a great deal on what's doing the
downsampling and resolution changing. I use Cool Edit Pro (the
predecessor of the grossly overpriced Adobe Audition). It has a
variety of different dithering techniques, including shaped triangular
for 96 kHz source material.The other reason for recording at a high sampling rate and resolution
is that I'll never have to re-record it. In the future, when the
standard consumer electronics format moves beyond 44.1/16, I'll be
ready to get out my DVD library and start burning.The tradeoff, of course, is disk space. 96/32 files are huge and will
fill up your hard drive very quickly. Unfortunately, FLAC and SHN are
both limited to 16-bit wave files. That's something I hope will change
in the future as well. In the mean time, DVD-R seems like the best
medium.Barry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Analog recording on DAT - Barry Rogoff 15:44:04 02/22/06 (3)
- Re: Analog recording on DAT - Marantzguy 11:14:58 02/23/06 (0)
- 24 bit - ketchup 21:28:29 02/22/06 (1)
- Re: 24 bit - Barry Rogoff 07:45:23 02/23/06 (0)