Re: [ARSCLIST] Mastering to WAV

["joe@xxxxxxxxxxx" <sergei01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If saving room is the objective, I don't think so - reducing sampling rate
will make a smaller file, increasing word depth will just about undo that
advantage, if I am understanding your question correctly.

js

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Tombleson" <pr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mastering to WAV


> Dear Angie,
> Thank you for your reply... I failed to note that "limited disk space"
> refers to Hard disk drives not CD.  I'm not going to master to CD but to
WAV
> on hard disk drives... therefore would it be worth going to go 44.1 at 24?
> Many thanks for your advise
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Angie Dickinson Mickle" <angie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mastering to WAV
>
>
> > Paul,
> > Redbook CD standard is 44.1@16.  There is no need to use 48K in your
> > situation unless this is audio for video.  The audible difference would
be
> > in the bit depth.  But in your situation you probably won't gain
anything
> > by going 24.
> >
> > Use 44.1 @ 16.  You won't have to worry about conversion or dither
> > quality.
> >
> > Angie Dickinson Mickle
> > www.avocadoproductions.com
> >
> > Paul Tombleson wrote:
> >> With the ongoing discussion about bit rate, etc for MP3, I was
wondering
> >> about another question regarding mastering rate for WAV files.
> >> I have a system (Pro Tools 5.1.1 with  888 I/O) that is older and
> >> therefore does not allow mastering higher than 48k @24 bit depth. My
> >> question therefore is which would be the more prudent settings to
master
> >> to WAV based on my limited equipment situation and disk space and that
98
> >> percent of the mastering would be for narration material from DAT tapes
> >> recorded at 48k...
> >>
> >> 44.1 at 16
> >> 44.1 at 24 or 48 at 24.
> >>
> >> I ask this because I remember reading or hearing somewhere that using
> >> 44.1k maybe better than using 48k due to some mathematical reason for
> >> future transfers. I of course am more than willing to accept I
> >> misunderstood or misread the situation. But then this is what the LIST
is
> >> for no doubt to enlighten or correct errors....LOL
> >>
> >> I thank you for your time in this regard
> >>
> >> Paul Tombleson
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date:
12/6/2005
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1314 (20051206) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>