Date:         Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:09:41 -0500
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Robert Cham <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Software for Mac
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

That's great!  A typo in a message about typos.

Yes I meant 24 bit 96 KHz.  The reason that I wonder if it is good 
enough is that research was done in the late '70s or early '80s that 
showed that the average Joe could discern information over 20 dB down 
into the noise on an analog recording.  No, I don't have the 
citations anymore.

This is the localization information that tells you about the 
acoustic properties of the hall and even can help one discern depth 
in a two track recording played on a good reproduction system.  All 
of this falls below 1 bit on a CD, and is the reason that they sound 
so "flat".

All of the above is only true if a coincident micing system is used, 
or at least well placed spaced omnis.  What I refer to as multi-track 
mono (many mics close to instruments) does not capture any of this 
information.  Some of the tapes that I have to transfer are of this 
quality.  I hope to make data discs on DVD at at least 24 / 96, for 
use when the playback technology catches up with analog.  Thus I 
wonder if 24 /96 is good enough to capture all of the information on 
the tapes.

If all of this is too OT, perhaps Lou and I should move it to DAW-MAC.

Bob Cham

>heh heh, my typo - meant 24, not 12!
>
><L>
>Lou Judson * Intuitive Audio
>415-883-2689
>
>
>On Oct 14, 2008, at 4:35 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
>
>>14 bit? You sure? That would be a problem... I try to always record 12 bit...
>>If it is a typo, you're forgiven. I'd still use 24 bit though.
>><L>