rec.arts.movies.production.sound

On 4 Mrz., 10:05, arkienk...@ wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:31=A0am, wildt=AEax > Oyu tests will
> only show that somemoe hears a difference between the
>
> > original and a CONVERTED original. But this is for sure not the
> > differenct between a 16/44 RECORDING and a 24/96 RECORDING.
>
> > All you are doing is "testing" the difference between an original and
> > all the effects your undisclosed SRC and dithering process might
> > induce.
>
> > Bit this is for sure not a test that wil show the difference between
> > 24/96 and 16/44.
>
> > frank.
>
> So, you mean that by originally recording separate 16/44 and 24/96
> files would give better 16/44 results.

I=B4m not talking about better results. What I mean was that you want to
test the "difference between 24/96 and 16/44" wich is already a fuzzy
question because it=B4s as if you asked if a porsche is "better" than an
Audi.

Only one example: In terms of system-noise figures 24bit is clearly
better than 16bit and that=B4s the main reason why it=B4s used in pro-
audio because there are multiple generation processen involves and
24bit helps to preserve the signal-noise quality. So is 24bit better
than 16bit? From a pro-audio standpoint: yes. From my grandmother=B4s
boom-box standpoint: no.
But does this mean all pros just need to record at 32k/8bit? No.

If your test shows a difference, it will be the difference between
down-converting a pristine 24b/96k recording no more no less. It will
however not show the difference of a whole 16b/ recording chain
and production so with regards of pro-audio aspects will not tell you
anything about wether it=B4s sufficient to record at 16b/.

Hope this helps to understand what I mean.

frank.