Re: [ARSCLIST] Cassette obsolescence - digitizing standards

[Lou Judson <loujudson@xxxxxxx>]

Alyssa, I'm saying I get more range of clarity for the processing stage 
- and must add that I am not really an archivist except for part time - 
but 24 bit buys you more dynamic range and accuracy for the audio 
sweetening you might want to do. It still can be archived and output as 
16 bit, for storage efficiency. Yes, you are correct, any enhancement 
comes from the "sweetening" which is only upon request - like if they's 
like a noise reduced listening copy, for example.

But I use a 24 bit conversion when the material calls for it (meaning 
if they want it improved for whatever reasons), then dither to 16 for 
the final. Again, I am not an archiving professional, just an audio 
engineer for hire... trying to please clients!

I love your Buddhist sig material, by the way...

Lou Judson • Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689

On Feb 20, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Alyssa Ryvers wrote:

> OK...so am I understanding correctly that you are transferring through 
> your converter into your computer at 16bit, but then importing it into 
> ProTools for 24bit?
>
> If this is the case, you're not "enhancing" the sound quality, but 
> just using some kind of algorithm(s) in order to get a more complex 
> file - information that was added, by the way, and has nothing to do 
> with the original.
>
> Alyssa.
> :)
>
> "If someone, holding fast to the name of Bodhisattva Perceiver of the 
> World's Sounds should enter a great fire, the fire could not burn 
> him...If one were washed away by a great flood and call upon his name, 
> one would immediately find himself in a shallow place." (The Lotus 
> Sutra)
> On 20-Feb-06, at 10:08 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
>
> > Interesting perspective. When I transfer cassettes for clients, I use 
> > 16 bit, and if they want it processed in any way, I import it to 24 
> > bit Protools sessions for the added range... Best of both worlds, I 
> > like to think.