I would think that tracking as hot as possible without distortion would result in the highest resolution, I.E. the greatest number of bits of program information in each digital sample.
There is no change in "resolution". An analog signal of 60dB of dynamic range will take 11 bits to fully accurately represent in digital regardless of whether those bits range from 0 to -60dBFS or from -20 to -80dBFS. There is*no* change in accuracy or resolution.
ah, but see, massive master's article claimed that the audio would sound better if it was recorded lower than trying to max out the bits.
That's because you keep thinking about this as a technical matter instead of a workflow matter, because you're talking about tactics instead of strategy, arguing the trees instead of the woods.
It's not a question of whether for technical reasons one should record on the digital palate at one level or another, it's a question of *why* do you choose that level?
Technically, it make no difference which bit registers you use. But you still need to choose which ones. So you need to look beyond just the technical specs.
Which way does it make more sense? Does it make more sense to turn everything up to record everything hot just to have to turn it back down again later? Or does it make more sense to just let the signal flow at nominal levels and let the engineer concentrate on other things than signal management? Assuming that technically it doesn't matter, given the choice, which makes mor sense?
Does it make more sense to, based upon a handful of sterile lab tests that bear little resemblance to real life, ignore a hundred years of audio engineering experience and it's *learned through experience* tenants of gaming the analog gain structure, or to view those tests as interestingm but not enough alone to describe the real situation in full, because the real life empirical evidence simply does not match the result s of the limited lab tests?
The question is - ignoring the rest of the signal chain for a just moment - given the information that it does not matter on a technical level where on the digital canvas one lays down their recording, then where *should* we lay it down?
The answer "it does not matter" is NOT an answer, it only defines the technical parameters, the lack of envelope to the answer. The question still begs, "what is the plan, here?" Should one
plan to record hot, should one
plan to record cold, or should one
plan to record along the natural path of least engineering management?
We are offering a *plan*, a strategy for setting up the gain structure that follows the plan The Engineers Who Decide These Things had in mind when they designed the standards and the equipment, that requires the least amount of signal management on the part of the operator, a plan that meets the tested technical requirements, and is fully scalable across all signal chains. Agree with it or not, it's a plan that has worked for the pros in analog for decades and for which the technical digital side specs have been designed to accommodate. And it's a plan which the empirical evidence fully supports with a very high success rate and a zero failure rate amongst pros and newbs alike.
You are welcome to trash the plan as you see fit, but then the questions become, "OK, then what is the alterative plan and how is it better?"
Strategically it's most certainly a FAR better idea. It's a non-argumental obviosity
I think I have the name of my next album.
That's just it, John, to many it's obvious, because they can focus on a strategic level. There are always folks who can't get past tactics, who can't see the art for which the science is only a foundation, for whom it will never be obvious.
G.
