[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:11:50 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Sorry - thought you'd gone. Still an idea, though. It can be hard
sometimes to root out all the old sound card drivers when you remove
one, and leaving it in place can be the cleaner option.

An interesting philosophy. Why?

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:38:35 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:11:50 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Sorry - thought you'd gone. Still an idea, though. It can be hard
sometimes to root out all the old sound card drivers when you remove
one, and leaving it in place can be the cleaner option.

An interesting philosophy. Why?

In the past I've found that drivers for cards that are no longer in
place can gum up the works rather. I can't make it any clearer than
that, because I don't understand quite why or how it happens. There
are probably bits of software out there that will make a decent job of
cleaning them out, but I haven't tried.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
In the past I've found that drivers for cards that are no longer in
place can gum up the works rather.

Careful not to get "too coloquial" there, Don. :-)

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:30:04 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
In the past I've found that drivers for cards that are no longer in
place can gum up the works rather.

Careful not to get "too coloquial" there, Don. :-)

I worried over that one, but I decided on balance...

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[P]

If he decides to. There was no need to use 24-bit. The Audigy has
many useful features. Perhaps its limitations, once recognised, don't
matter for him.

The bottom line is, its limitations are inaudible to me!

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 09:41:56 +1000, "P" wrote:

If he decides to. There was no need to use 24-bit. The Audigy has
many useful features. Perhaps its limitations, once recognised, don't
matter for him.

The bottom line is, its limitations are inaudible to me!

You probably WOULD notice the difference between an Audigy and a
better card, both working at the same sample rate and bit depth. It's
not a huge difference, but it's there. And you WERE interested in
getting superior quality, though 24 bits were a mistaken (and in this
case unfortunate) way of achieving it :-)

[Geoff]

P wrote:

OTOH, unless you have very good sources, (and FM
radio is clearly NOT one) dunno what recording at
24-bit benefits you anyway? It will get chopped back
to 16 bit when you make your CDs in any case.

OK, OK. It was a whim. One that I regret, but that I would not in my
wildest dreams have ever thought would result in a totally substandard
recording. I can't imagine any reason why I'd deliberately try and
sabotage a recording that was very important to me.

On the other hand, given a non-broken system, there is no point in NOT
recording at 24 bits, if nothing else to make level-setting a non-issue
(within reason).

Again, something is broken. The thing is to isdentidy what is broken and
fix it (procedure, settings, software, hardware).

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote:
P wrote:

OTOH, unless you have very good sources, (and FM
radio is clearly NOT one) dunno what recording at
24-bit benefits you anyway? It will get chopped back
to 16 bit when you make your CDs in any case.

OK, OK. It was a whim. One that I regret, but that I would not in my
wildest dreams have ever thought would result in a totally substandard
recording. I can't imagine any reason why I'd deliberately try and
sabotage a recording that was very important to me.

On the other hand, given a non-broken system, there is no point in NOT
recording at 24 bits, if nothing else to make level-setting a non-issue
(within reason).

In actual practice the advantages to this are substantially
less than one might think. The noise floor of a large number
of digital system sporting both 16- and 24-bit modes is
often not much different, effectively limiting the dynamic
range of the 24-bit mode to maybe 3 dB better than 16-
bit mode.

Thus, the "level setting" advantage is at best a minor
one. For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

[Geoff]

wrote:
Geoff wrote:

Thus, the "level setting" advantage is at best a minor
one.

Yes

For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

.... which is a total non-issue.

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Geoff wrote:

Thus, the "level setting" advantage is at best a minor
one.

Yes

For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

... which is a total non-issue.

Depends on what you are doing (and how).

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
Geoff wrote:

Thus, the "level setting" advantage is at best a minor
one.

Yes

For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

... which is a total non-issue.

I think if I had to ship a 150 MB or a 200 MB file to a remote
location via a network connection that is less than reliable
or is less than lickety split lightening fast, this total non-
issue would start ot become an important issue. If I had to
ship a couple of voice-overs to a mailbox that might have
a size limit imposed on it (as many do). this total non-issue
would become a significant issue.

[Geoff]

wrote:
Geoff wrote:
wrote:
Geoff wrote:

Thus, the "level setting" advantage is at best a minor
one.

Yes

For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

... which is a total non-issue.

I think if I had to ship a 150 MB or a 200 MB file to a remote
location via a network connection that is less than reliable
or is less than lickety split lightening fast, this total non-
issue would start ot become an important issue. If I had to
ship a couple of voice-overs to a mailbox that might have
a size limit imposed on it (as many do). this total non-issue
would become a significant issue.

His problem is related to recording for a specific purpose, not shipping or
networking.

In your scenario, I would still be inclined to record at 24 bits myself,
then reduce to whatver format is desired (often multiple formats in that
scenario). Easier to set level for no overs, and I don't have to dick with
my standard setup. Rendering to whatever delivery format/s is trivial.

geoff

[Geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"P" wrote in message

There are some common ways that 24 bit recordings may be
mishandled at playback time, that makes them sound
pretty crappy.

If that's the case I'd like to hear about them. I've
tried replaying through Sound Forge, WinAmp 2.22, Windows
Media Player... then gave up because they all sounded the
same. If there's some possible decoding (or similar)
problem, I'd really like to know.

AFAIK most if not all of those programs are capable of mishandling
the playback of a 24 bit file.

What a load of craparni - no SF won't "mishandle" it, whatever that means .

And WMP won't even try to play it, so would have trouble "mishandling" it.

geoff
(can I patent the word 'craparni' ?)

[Geoff]

P wrote:
There are some common ways that 24 bit recordings may be mishandled
at playback time, that makes them sound pretty crappy.

If that's the case I'd like to hear about them. I've tried replaying
through Sound Forge, WinAmp 2.22, Windows Media Player... then gave up
because they all sounded the same. If there's some possible decoding
(or similar) problem, I'd really like to know.

Pray tell how you got a supposedly 24 bit file to even attempt play in WMP ?

geoff

[Geoff]

P wrote:
If he decides to. There was no need to use 24-bit. The Audigy has
many useful features. Perhaps its limitations, once recognised,
don't matter for him.

The bottom line is, its limitations are inaudible to me!

So there is nothing wrong with those 24 bit files after all ?

geoff

[Geoff]

P wrote:
Low-end (no offence) sound cards frequently work at 48kHz internally
even when dealing with 44.1kHz material. The conversion in and out
isn't always the best.

You're telling me!

It may be time to send this card to the big ranch in the sky.

Well it's had a lot of years of use. What I've presented here has
certainly been the card putting in its worst performance ever in all
those years.

It's not a 'worst performance ever" issue - it's an actually BROKEN issue -
most likely to be a driver.

geoff

[Geoff]

P wrote:
This might go some of the way to solving the prob. I just did a test
recording at 48000kHz, 24-bit. No problem at all. But at 44100,
24-bit it sounds crappy. Any thoughts?

Well 'Creative' do have that compulsory SRC thang in the background. But it
doesn't do anything quite like THAT to the sound.

geoff

[P]

The bottom line is, its limitations are inaudible to me!

So there is nothing wrong with those 24 bit files after all ?

That's not what I meant! LOL There was EVERYTHING wrong with the 24-bit
file. I was referring to the comments being made about the Audigy's
shortcomings compared to other less games-oriented cards.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Geoff wrote:

Thus, the "level setting" advantage is at best a minor
one.

Yes

For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

... which is a total non-issue.

Depends on what you are doing (and how).

IME, point well taken. I stopped doing large multitrack live projects in 24
bits when I found that 24 bits meant burning 2 DVDs while 16 bits meant
having to burn only 1. It wasn't the media, it was the time. That and I
found that the best possible noise floor was about 90 dB down in either
case.

[[email protected]]

Geoff wrote:
wrote:
Geoff wrote:
wrote:
For that you get to have files that are 50% or 100%
larger for the same effective audio.

... which is a total non-issue.

I think if I had to ship a 150 MB or a 200 MB file to a remote
location via a network connection that is less than reliable
or is less than lickety split lightening fast, this total non-
issue would start ot become an important issue. If I had to
ship a couple of voice-overs to a mailbox that might have
a size limit imposed on it (as many do). this total non-issue
would become a significant issue.

His problem is related to recording for a specific purpose, not
shipping or networking.

It should be noted that your statement was, exactly:

"a total non-issue"

which can be reasonably assumed to mean that it
is not an issue under any circumstances. There are
many circumstances under which it is an issue, even
for the original poster. Consider his statement:

"I should also tell you that the resulting file is
968MB for 63'56" of recording. "

Now, precisely how much of a total non-issue is it
if he wantted to archive this file off to a CD-ROM?
It becomes a MAJOR issue, i.e., impossible.

Consider also several comments made later in
this very same thread:

"Don't upload sizeable files - nobody will bother
to download them. Twenty seconds is plenty to
establish the nature of the problem. Even the
most limited web space should handle that
comfortably."

20 seconds of 24 bit, 44.1 kHz audio takes up 5.3 MB
at packed 3 bytes/sample, 7.0 MB at 4 bytes/sample.
yet only 3.5MB at 16 bit.
Then,

I wouldn't upload more than a few seconds of .wav
audio but much of my existing webspace is taken
up with other stuff, and I only get 10MB.

So, it would seem, even for the original poster, it is
far more than "a total non-issue" even in the most
limited sense of this specifc thread's context.

So, IN THIS CONTEXT, you have shown no real
upsides do using 24-bit recording, even ignoring
the OP's apparently broken sound card/driver,
considering that there is no dynamic range
advantage to speak of, with downsides of
substantially larger file sizes, copy times and
transfer limitations, it is most assuredly NOT
"a total non-issue."

[Geoff]

wrote:
....

.......quite a lot.......
..........
So, IN THIS CONTEXT, you have shown no real
upsides do using 24-bit recording, even ignoring
the OP's apparently broken sound card/driver,
considering that there is no dynamic range
advantage to speak of, with downsides of
substantially larger file sizes, copy times and
transfer limitations, it is most assuredly NOT
"a total non-issue."

As you like.

I find it a total non-issue to me. Which includes regular backing up of
large multi- \track projects. That OK ?

geoff

[Ro_ro]

You can't improve on the source at the end of the day. Thus using 24 bit
sample resolution is wasted. Cds are 16 bit. Not sure what online radio is.
And btw sample resolution has nothing to do with bitrate.

Then 24bit sampling is hugely more processor and memory intensive than
16bit. I'd say at a guess yhat maybe your muddy results were due to your PC
struggling, especially if you had other apps going on at the same time...
and no, if this was the case it wouldn't be salvageable.


"Geoff" wrote in message
...
P wrote:
Tonight I recorded an FM radio show from my tuner onto the computer
as a .wav/uncompressed PCM using Sound Forge.

Before the show started, I changed a setting so that it would record
in 24-bit rather than 16-bit, thinking this would improve the quality.
However, the end result sounds muddy, completely lacking in top end -
in fact the online stream would have sounded better.

What did I do wrong? Is it salvageable or am I stuck with it
sounding worse than an AM radio show? I would be extremely grateful
for any help on this.

It shouldn't be noticably different at all. You must have had something
stuffed up.

16 bit if recorded properly should be way better than the FM anyway !


geoff

[Geoff]

Ro_ro wrote:
You can't improve on the source at the end of the day. Thus using 24
bit sample resolution is wasted.

Have you not read or do not understand the comments explaining why 24 bit
enables more secure recording practices wrt level setting ?


Then 24bit sampling is hugely more processor and memory intensive than
16bit.

Bull****. Fast processorss and large memory (and storage) has for long been
the norm. There is totally insignificant increase in ''stress' on a system
tracking large number of concurrent tracks at 24 bits.


I'd say at a guess yhat maybe your muddy results were due to
your PC struggling, especially if you had other apps going on at the
same time... and no, if this was the case it wouldn't be salvageable.

Not many people are currently still using P233s for audio recording
applications.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Ro_ro wrote:
You can't improve on the source at the end of the day. Thus using 24 bit
sample resolution is wasted. Cds are 16 bit. Not sure what online radio is.
And btw sample resolution has nothing to do with bitrate.

False. For uncompressed PCM audio, the bit rate is the product
of the sample rate, the sample width in bits and the number
of channels per sample block. Thus, 24 bit audio has a raw
bitrate 50% greater than 16 bit audio at the same sample
rate, assuming packed 3-byte samples.

Then 24bit sampling is hugely more processor and memory
intensive than 16bit.

No, it is not. For recording, it is only 50% more "intensive."
That's not "hugely" And for recording, most of the work
the CPU is doing is simply moving samples around and
some bookkeeping, at most.

I'd say at a guess yhat maybe your muddy results were due to your PC
struggling, especially if you had other apps going on at the same time...

Yeah, that'd be a guess, and a wrong one at that. If the
PC was "struggling," as you suggest, you'd have large
gaps in the audio as the process was unable to keep
up. You'd not have a severe bandwidth limiting as the
original poster described.

It might be helpful to actually read some of the thread,
where it was determined that the soundcard the poster
was using has a very poor implementation of 24 bit,
24 kHz sampling.

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Ro_ro wrote:
You can't improve on the source at the end of the day. Thus using 24
bit sample resolution is wasted.

Have you not read or do not understand the comments explaining why 24 bit
enables more secure recording practices wrt level setting ?

Usually overkill. Real world recordings have maybe 75 dB dynamic range on
the best day. 16 bits handles about 96 dB dynamic range. If you can't set
levels within 20 dB you really need to clean up your act!

Then 24bit sampling is hugely more processor and memory intensive than
16bit.

Bull****. Fast processorss and large memory (and storage) has for long
been the norm. There is totally insignificant increase in ''stress' on a
system tracking large number of concurrent tracks at 24 bits.

In fact the capacity of a recording system tends to have a fairly rigid
breaking point. I've definately seen weak but adequate systems that could
handle 16 bit recording all day long, but fell on their face when upped to
24.

I'd say at a guess yhat maybe your muddy results were due to
your PC struggling, especially if you had other apps going on at the
same time... and no, if this was the case it wouldn't be salvageable.

Generally, an under-capacity system does not produce mud - it produces
clicks and pops and the like. Or, it locks up.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Geoff"wrote ...
Have you not read or do not understand the comments explaining why 24
bit enables more secure recording practices wrt level setting ?

Usually overkill. Real world recordings have maybe 75 dB dynamic range
on the best day. 16 bits handles about 96 dB dynamic range. If you
can't set levels within 20 dB you really need to clean up your act!

Furthermore, lots of "24-bit" equipment doesn't have
24 bits worth of dynamic range in the analog part of
the circuit.

Generally, an under-capacity system does not produce mud - it produces
clicks and pops and the like. Or, it locks up.

Exactly.

[Ethan Winer]

Arny,

Real world recordings have maybe 75 dB dynamic range on the best day. 16
bits handles about 96 dB dynamic range. If you can't set levels within 20 dB
you really need to clean up your act!

That's how I see it too. Why, back in my day (yawn) we had to get an
acceptable s/n using multiple tracks of analog tape with no Dolby or dbx
noise reduction. So that meant using a limiter on the way in to prevent
accidental overloads when recording, and/or boosting the treble a bit when
recording things you knew would need it later to avoid boosting the tape
hiss at mixdown. Young 'uns these days don't know how good they have it,
even with "only" 16 bits.

I've definately seen weak but adequate systems that could handle 16 bit
recording all day long, but fell on their face when upped to 24.

Regardless of whether someone has an old or new computer, the reality is you
can get half again more tracks at 16 bits than at 24. I'm not arguing
against using 24 bits when it makes sense! Every orchestra I've ever
recorded hit peaks 6 to 10 dB louder during the concert than for the level
check. But let's keep this stuff in perspective. Pop music does not use or
need 120+ dB of dynamic range.

--Ethan

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:16:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Furthermore, lots of "24-bit" equipment doesn't have
24 bits worth of dynamic range in the analog part of
the circuit.

Can you quote one that does? Or even one that has 16 bits?

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:16:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Furthermore, lots of "24-bit" equipment doesn't have
24 bits worth of dynamic range in the analog part of
the circuit.

Can you quote one that does?

Not generally feasible. The air gets very rare around 20 bits.

Or even one that has 16 bits?

Quite a few. For example, the relatively inexpensive M-Audio 24192 has
almost exactly 98.1 dB unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode. This compares
favorably with the 98.02 dB dynamic range of a *perfect* 16 bits.
A-weighted, this improves to about 103 dB.

[Geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Ro_ro wrote:
You can't improve on the source at the end of the day. Thus using 24
bit sample resolution is wasted.

Have you not read or do not understand the comments explaining why
24 bit enables more secure recording practices wrt level setting ?

Usually overkill. Real world recordings have maybe 75 dB dynamic
range on the best day. 16 bits handles about 96 dB dynamic range. If
you can't set levels within 20 dB you really need to clean up your
act!

It's not only the recording, but processing subsequently that may give
degradation went the recorded level in 16 bits is low. Given that in real
non-bleeding-edge systems that are in common use today that 24 bits is an
inconsequential extra effort, it =just seems silly to record in anything
other that 24. Unless you are trying to record a zillion tracks at once
......

..

In fact the capacity of a recording system tends to have a fairly
rigid breaking point. I've definately seen weak but adequate systems
that could handle 16 bit recording all day long, but fell on their
face when upped to 24.

As I said, who runs a P233 as a DAW these days anyway. I record up to 24
tracks concurrently at 24 bits with regular IDE 7200 drives and a 2GHz CPU
without a sweat.

geoff

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:16:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

Furthermore, lots of "24-bit" equipment doesn't have
24 bits worth of dynamic range in the analog part of
the circuit.

Can you quote one that does? Or even one that has 16 bits?

A decent converter or the signal chain before it ?

For a converter, this one.
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...8_tecspec.html
Dynamic range is 105dB.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:16:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Furthermore, lots of "24-bit" equipment doesn't have
24 bits worth of dynamic range in the analog part of
the circuit.

Can you quote one that does?

Not generally feasible. The air gets very rare around 20 bits.

Or even one that has 16 bits?

Quite a few. For example, the relatively inexpensive M-Audio 24192 has
almost exactly 98.1 dB unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode. This compares
favorably with the 98.02 dB dynamic range of a *perfect* 16 bits.
A-weighted, this improves to about 103 dB.

A little update here.

Prism's DreamAD-2 quotes 130dB unweightewd dynamic range !
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

The matching D-A has only 111dB though :-(
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:16:28 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Furthermore, lots of "24-bit" equipment doesn't have
24 bits worth of dynamic range in the analog part of
the circuit.

Can you quote one that does?

Not generally feasible. The air gets very rare around 20 bits.

Or even one that has 16 bits?

Quite a few. For example, the relatively inexpensive M-Audio 24192 has
almost exactly 98.1 dB unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode. This
compares
favorably with the 98.02 dB dynamic range of a *perfect* 16 bits.
A-weighted, this improves to about 103 dB.

A little update here.

Prism's DreamAD-2 quotes 130dB unweightewd dynamic range !
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

Hey, and they will even give you $600 change from $10K.

More overkill.

The numbers I measure and cite are typically "round-trip". When I've had the
equipment to look at either end separately, the noise is usually pretty
evenly split. So, either end is really about 3 dB better then they are when
cascaded.

The matching D-A has only 111dB though :-(
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

One could do far better with a LynxTwo. Probably one of the Lynx Studio
stand-alone boxes is at least as good.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

A little update here.

Prism's DreamAD-2 quotes 130dB unweightewd dynamic range !
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

Hey, and they will even give you $600 change from $10K.

More overkill.

A specialist market.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Usually overkill. Real world recordings have maybe 75 dB dynamic
range on the best day. 16 bits handles about 96 dB dynamic range. If
you can't set levels within 20 dB you really need to clean up your
act!

It's not only the recording, but processing subsequently that may give
degradation went the recorded level in 16 bits is low. Given that in real
non-bleeding-edge systems that are in common use today that 24 bits is an
inconsequential extra effort, it =just seems silly to record in anything
other that 24. Unless you are trying to record a zillion tracks at once

You don't lose that much with processing. For one thing, a lot of modern
software does all the EFX for 16 bit files with 24 or 32 bit calculations.
That means that less than one bit is lost. Using the example above, there
are between 3 and 4 bits of slack. When you apply processing in multiple
passes, the bit loss doesn't add linearly. It takes about twice as many
passes to lose each bit. So, you might lose 1 bit in 2-3 passes, but it will
take 6 or more passes to lose the next bit up, and so on.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

A little update here.

Prism's DreamAD-2 quotes 130dB unweightewd dynamic range !
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

Hey, and they will even give you $600 change from $10K.

More overkill.

A specialist market.

Maybe they can sell one to AP. ;-)

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

A little update here.

Prism's DreamAD-2 quotes 130dB unweightewd dynamic range !
http://www.prismsound.com/music_reco...2_tecspec.html

Hey, and they will even give you $600 change from $10K.

More overkill.

A specialist market.

Maybe they can sell one to AP. ;-)

Their test set competes with AP !

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
It's not only the recording, but processing subsequently that may give
degradation went the recorded level in 16 bits is low. Given that in
real
non-bleeding-edge systems that are in common use today that 24 bits is
an
inconsequential extra effort, it =just seems silly to record in anything
other that 24. Unless you are trying to record a zillion tracks at once

You don't lose that much with processing. For one thing, a lot of modern
software does all the EFX for 16 bit files with 24 or 32 bit calculations.

Yep, 16 bit processing of any file is actually pretty rare these days, and
intermediate files can also be saved as 32 bit, regardless of the recording
bit depth.

I also use a simple technique to get even more dynamic range in the studio,
simply record the same input to two tracks with say 10-20 dB more gain on
one. You can then select from each track in mixdown for quiet or loud
passages, and never have to worry about gain setting problems. Saves a lot
of set-up time, and eliminates unexpected clipping or noise. So given the
real world performance of most digital systems, recording two 16 bit tracks
can be better than one 24 bit track. Of course recording two 24 bit tracks
per channel doesn't create much of a problem either these days.

MrT.

[Ethan Winer]

simply record the same input to two tracks with say 10-20 dB more gain on
one. You can then select from each track in mixdown for quiet or loud
passages, and never have to worry about gain setting problems.

That is absolutely brilliant.

[Mr.T]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
simply record the same input to two tracks with say 10-20 dB more gain
on
one. You can then select from each track in mixdown for quiet or loud
passages, and never have to worry about gain setting problems.

That is absolutely brilliant.

Thank you. I first started doing it of course back when it was more
necessary than with current digital capabilities. I was always surprised
nobody else seemed to think of it, or be bothered if they ever did. Now it
is less necessary, but even easier to do, so why not.

MrT.