Re: OT: 24Bit/96Khz vs 16Bit/ 44.1Khz recording

[Dennis Moser <sinsofmachaut@gmail.com>]

"Record once, edit many."

You can't realistically uprez the recording, so if you have the
storage, go ahead and use the 24bit capability…you can always down-rez
to  64 kbitMP3  later … :D

Seriously? I noticed a tremendous difference with field recordings
when I bumped my TASCAM DR-100 to full 24-bit/96kHz. There was so much
more there to work with later...

Best,

Dennis

http://soundcloud.com/usrsbin
http://audiozoloft.com
http://usrslashsbin.angrek.com/



On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Paul Richards
<paulrichard_rocks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi, all:
>
> I just picked up a Tascam DR-2d on a closeout for a very reasonable 
> price.
> The recording formats of this portable unit are varied and 
> full-featured. I
> remember recording at a very high resolution many years ago and was
> awestruck by the clarity of the sound eminating from my speakers. The 
> guitar
> tones had much clarity. Of course, to listen to the music in a portable
> format, I recorded to CD (16Bit/44.1Khz, I believe).
>
> So, the question is: is there any advantage to recording the source at a
> higher rate (e.g. 24Bit/98Khz or 24Bit/44 Khz) when, ultimately, the 
> songs
> will be converted to CD quality?
>
> Of course, the higher rate means filling up SD cards quicker. But, they 
> are
> fairly reasonable as far as cost. Opinions?
>
> Thanks, Paul