arnyk wrote: > To make the absurdity of this suggestion more clear, why not master at > 48 bits? Without discussing audibility at all, one can say about 24/96: it is a standard format, audio software deals with it, and as drmatt points out humans can sometimes make mistakes. If your amp is exactly 10ft from your speakers, do you cut the speaker wire to exactly 10ft? Or do you add a little? arnyk wrote: > Unlike 24 bit mastering that triples the file size with no audible > benefit, this only doubles it.Some humans make mistakes. "24 bit triples it, > but 48 bit only doubles it" is some wacky math. I think you meant 48 only -further- doubles it. That's okay though, we're all human, we all make mistakes. arnyk wrote: > In professional recording and live sound, 24-32 channels is an average > to small console. That means that situations where 24-32 or more active > channels are in play. 32 tracks of 16 bits for recording a 1 hour > session is 81 gigabytes.Uh, 44100Hz * 2 bytes * 32 channels * 3600 sec / 10^9 > = 10.16 GB per hour. You are off by a factor of 8. Did we forget the difference between bits and bytes? That's okay though, we're all human, we all make mistakes. So 10ish GB will easily fit on a $10 16GB USB3 stick for easy transport or take up about 50cents worth of an external 2TB HD. Cheaper for internal. For studios with 24-32 channel consoles, are these prices excessive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ docbob's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64780 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
