Search results

OK, I think I meant that in the final mix, each track will have a reduced dynamic range compared to the range of the original tracks in order for all of them to be able to sit in the context of a new 16 bit or 24 bit file. They all suddenly will have to "share the space" of a file with the same...

All technical details about the benefits apart, you are at least suggesting that you in fact can render a 24 bit mixdown from a bunch of 16 bit tracks, which was my main issue. I'm aware of that a DSP decrease in volume is in fact a decrease in bit representation of the sound and that was in...

I was not implying that 24 bits would make anything sound louder, in fact I was not stating the essence of the benefits at all. But if I am to do so, I meant that there ought to be a way of mixing down the sum of the dynamic ranges of several 16 bit tracks to fully occupy the dynamic range of a...

OK, so there is a gradual degradation from high to low frequences regardless of sample frequency but less obvious the higher frequency you use, due to the fact that lower frequencies equals longer wave lengths. OK, I buy that. You will primarily get a better representation of the lower...

What i am most interested in is if mixing down to a greater bit depth than the one used for the individual tracks has any benefits. An example: My song is made up of four 16 bit mono tracks, recorded hot (just below 0 dB). The total dynamic content is 4x16=64 bits. When mixing down to 16 bit...

There's a lot of talk these days about the benefits of 24 bit/96 kHz recording over the old CD standard. Often there is a lack of technical knowledge and instead you are fed with final words like "There's a significant audible difference..." or "There's no audible difference whatsoever..."...