 |
 |
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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alyssa Ryvers >Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:42 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >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 >>>-- >>>[log in to unmask] >>>http://www.mrichter.com/ >>> >>> > > >