24/96 vs 16/44

[mjamed]

Hallo everybody,

Is it really worth recoding in 24/96 if the final product is a CD? Any advantages?

Or 16/44 is good enough?

[NYMorningstar]

Sure is worth it. Read here to find out why.http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=35/

and welcome to the BBS.

[Han]

Have some spare time? this is the most famous thread about the subject: http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultim...3;t=000822;p=1

[apl]

Hey, mjamed.

If your final format is CD, 16/44.1k, then record at 24/44.1k. The 24 bit dynamic range is very useful. Converting down from 48 or 96 to 44.1 is a royal pain, because the ratio is 1.088435374...

The DAT people intentionally made their sample rate a screwy ratio so that people couldn't make a perfect copy of a CD.

See http://www.prorec.com/prorec/article...2566B20022F4CA

Scroll down to sample rate conversion.

There will be much disagreement...

[mjamed]

Hallo all

your advice was to record at 24/44.1k. I am using Adobe audiotion (Aardvark 24/96 soundcard) and i know how to choose /44.1k but i don't know how to make it record at 24 bit? there are only three choices 8, 16 and 32(float).

how can i choose 32bit?

thanks for help,

mmj

[lpdeluxe]

I'll repeat what I said on another thread: go with 32 bit. It's "really" 24 bit with some extra room.