Analog transfer in 24 bit? Is it needed or worth it?

[twatts]

OK, I'm not going to get into a discussion of how analog is NOT "16/44" and how "16/44" is a digital standard, nor am I willing to discuss the in-and-outs of Transferring from analog to digital. It's fruitless, there are a zillion thesis' on the subject, and besides the point.

The point is there is in existance a 24/48 "master" WAV file, as well as a 16/44 WAV file. While I agree it is probably dumb to upsample the 44 to 48 for use on the video, using the 24/48 would have been preferable to the AC3 which is used now - which was exactly Marmar's point of contention.

Like I said, I don't want to get into the middle of this. Whether or not you think 24/48 is appropriate for Transferring analog is your own opinion. Marmar thinks its just fine. I have other issues with his Transferring Process, but I'm not going to complain because he does so much for the community. In other words, we all have our own preferences. I do believe that we all would prefer to have lossless audio and not AC3, or are you arguing that AC3 is acceptable???

And again, I am not dissing CleanTone and his work. I actually praise him for it. Props and many thanks. I don't DL many vids, but I did DL this one. Again thanks for the hard work.

Have a nice day!

Terry

[retired]

Posts moved since the torrent got pulled via request of the seeder and they were directly related to Analog > Digital captures.

As terry pointed out, 16/44 is a redbook cd standard the industry came up with when cd's came on the scene. My understanding of analog is, unlike digital, there are NO bit rates on the recording. So yes, it's pointless to upsample a DAT recorded 16/48 to 24/anything...however, if there is no bitrae limiting with analog, then it's all on the method of capture and settings.

I hear a tremendous difference between 24bit & 16bit analog captures of the same cassette tapes & reels. I believe the guys who did the work on the Dead Europe 71 box set, captured all the reels at 24 bit. I know for a fact that Duke University captured all 1700+ reels of Eugene Smith's archive in 24 bit.

I will defer to what my ears tell me VS what anyone on the intardnet says.

[spidergawd]

True, there are no "bits" or "sample rates" on analog recording. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the level of magnetization of the particles on the tape are analogous to the amplitude of the sound waves they represent, as opposed to being represented by truncated binary values in digital recordings. Due to the truncation it is therefore mathematically more accurate to do any digital editing in 24 bit even if the end result will be dithered to 16 bit. Downsampling may cause noticeable degradation, which is why I've often heard that it's best to record at the target sample rate of the end result, rather than downsampling later. It may be worthwhile to do a 44.1 kHz transfer for eventual CD burning and also do a transfer at a higher sample rate for higher quality target, but both would benefit from 24 bit capture.

Please feel free to bash my ignorance as required.

[Rob Berger]

whether the tape is a sonic masterpiece or a mediocre, a 24 bit transfer will be better sounding than the 16 bit version. On a good stereo the difference is most certainly audible. my two cents...

[rspencer]

Any analog recording's dynamic range falls well within the range afforded with 16/44.1
Using anything higher is unnecessary.
But if it makes you feel better to use 24/whatever, have at it.
Talkin' numbers & science, not subjective listening.
Lots of people think $1500 cables make a difference too. Yet no one can prove it so.

[spidergawd]

Originally Posted by rspencer

Any analog recording's dynamic range falls well within the range afforded with 16/44.1
Using anything higher is unnecessary.
But if it makes you feel better to use 24/whatever, have at it.
Talkin' numbers & science, not subjective listening.
Lots of people think $1500 cables make a difference too. Yet no one can prove it so.

Did you mean "frequency range"?

[Audioarchivist]

I like to think of it this way: imagine you're trying to draw a curve, or a circle, but you can only use straight lines and 90 degree angles. To at least give the illusion at a distance of that round edge you'd want to use the smallest length lines and as many tiny angles as possible to make your drawing appear round.

We're drawing sine waves with staircases. Wouldn't you want to use smaller steps? Why settle for great pyramid sized blocks if you can have smaller steps? The more samples per second and bits per sample, the more likely it will fool us humans into thinking we're really listening to round waves rather than square waves.

Go with the higher sample rates for archiving analog recordings. You never know when the master will disappear or be damaged, and when the next audio format comes along, you'll be ready for it.

Remember kids, Audioarchivist says:
"Bigger bit buckets begat better bootlegs!"

[Top Hat Tapes]

Originally Posted by Rob Berger

whether the tape is a sonic masterpiece or a mediocre, a 24 bit transfer will be better sounding than the 16 bit version. On a good stereo the difference is most certainly audible. my two cents...

Agreed.