[LAU] Mastering question (not software, but technique)

[frank pirrone]

Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
> On 4 April 2009 at 23:07, Julien Claassen <julien at c-lab.de> wrote:
>
>   
>>    Does it make much difference if you record in 48kHz or 96kHz
>> if you finally get down to 44.1kHz output for the public? I
>> mean realistically, not just in theory viewed on some analyzer.
>>     
>
> I've read a few things in "Recording" magazine over the last few 
> years which indicate that bit depth is much more important than bit 
> rate when it comes to compression.  If you start with 16-bit audio, 
> then compress it, you'll end up with the signal compressed to less 
> than 16-bits, and then you'll add noise to fill up the remaining 
> bits.  They recommend going with more bits.  I record at 24-bits.
> I don't see any usefulness in recording at a higher bit rate, when my 
> target is 44.1kHz.  Those same articles didn't say higher bit rates 
> were bad.  But, they did say that extra bits are much better than 
> faster bits, at least when it comes to compression issues.
>
> Hope that helps....
>  
> --
> Kevin
>   
Makes sense, Kevin.  I guess it's a dynamic range vs. resolution issue.  
Interesting questions Julien.  Be sure to post your discoveries and 
solutions.  Sorry I don't have any advice or experience to help.

Frank