|
|
Posted by Romeo Rondeau on 04/22/06 20:48
>> It was the big marketing push for 24-bit on the multitrack. It's not
>> necessary in most cases. 16-bits are more than fine for most things at
>> the
>> multitrack level. At the two-track, things are different, you have reverb
>> trails to contend with there...
>
> You don't have reverb tails coming into your mics? ;)
>
> I think that the most important contribution of 24-bit recording is
> that it (eventually) brought us converters that were accurate to 18
> bits or so, which is really enough for practical sound sources.
Yeah, I do, but at that point they aren't as critical as the resolution loss
at the mixing stage. After all, each channel from a 24 track recording
doesn't get printed at the final at the level that it comes off the machine,
it's always reduced in volume, at that point you need more bits to avoid
resolution loss. What gets lost going from 16-bit to 16-bit is low level
signals, like reverb trails.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|