Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence - digitizing standards

[Jeffrey Kane <jeffkane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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/
>