Topic: Few more ?s before 1st outing

[run_run_run]

Set up last night with stereo and everything worked great, I just need to charge the batterys.

1. if I am between -12 -6 DB am I ok, I am using audacity

2. I think I will be able to get close with a DIY J-disk, is there a such thing as to close? I sat front row at this venue and it sound great. Also if it where packed is 10 row ish to far for a J-disk.

[cleantone]

You say audacity so I assume your recording to a laptop. If you at 24bit that will be okay. If 16bit I'd urge you to get a bit closer to 0.

[run_run_run]

You say audacity so I assume your recording to a laptop. If you at 24bit that will be okay. If 16bit I'd urge you to get a bit closer to 0.

Going to do 16, I don't have 24 bit playback gear. I will shot for -6. 0.

[willndmb]

even though you don't have 24 bit playback, if you have the HD space you might want to do 24 bit anyway then dither down to 16
plus i also recommend getting closer to 0, but i like to run my mics hottttt shot for around -3 though i suggest

[SparkE!]

even though you don't have 24 bit playback, if you have the HD space you might want to do 24 bit anyway then dither down to 16
plus i also recommend getting closer to 0, but i like to run my mics hottttt shot for around -3 though i suggest

If you record at 24 bit, you don't have to get so close to the rails and -6 to -12 will work fine.  The additional dynamic range will more than compensate for the lower recording levels and by the time you normalize and get to 16 bits for burning to CD, you'll get the same effect as having nailed the recording at -0 dB at 16 bits.  That's the main advantage of going to 24 bits of resolution in my opinion.  You just dont' have to ride the rail in order to get 16 bits of dynamic range in the end product.

[run_run_run]

even though you don't have 24 bit playback, if you have the HD space you might want to do 24 bit anyway then dither down to 16
plus i also recommend getting closer to 0, but i like to run my mics hottttt shot for around -3 though i suggest

If you record at 24 bit, you don't have to get so close to the rails and -6 to -12 will work fine.  The additional dynamic range will more than compensate for the lower recording levels and by the time you normalize and get to 16 bits for burning to CD, you'll get the same effect as having nailed the recording at -0 dB at 16 bits.  That's the main advantage of going to 24 bits of resolution in my opinion.  You just dont' have to ride the rail in order to get 16 bits of dynamic range in the end product.

Okay will do, so I will just set audacity to 24 96

[cleantone]

You can do that. I think the 96k mght be overkill. You could (I would) do 24bit 44.1khz and archive that for when you do have 24bit playback and for the higher resolution for post. Then dither down to 16bit. You weren't planning on 96khz at 16bit before were you?

[SparkE!]

I agree with cleantone on this.  You don't get much improvement in accurate waveform reproduction in the audible frequency spectrum by going to the higher sample rate of 96 kHz, but the greater bit depth of 24 bits has easily demonstrable benefits.  You'd be hard pressed to reliably identify the difference between two recordings of the same source, one of which was 24/96 and the other of which was 24/48 or 24/44.1.  At the higher sample rate, you increase the likelihood of transfer rate limitations going through your USB port and to the hard disk.  On Windows 2000 and later (any of the NT-based versions of Windows), you have one interrupt controller that handles all of the hardware interrupts, so a high traffic load on your USB port can affect how fast you can write to your hard disk and traffic to your hard disk can affect how fast you can take data from your USB port.  So, you're more likely to get missing data in a 96 kHz recording than in a 48 kHz recording.  If you've got a way fast machine, then it may not matter, but your run-of-the-mill laptop might not be able to keep up at the 96 kHz sample rate... at least not for an hour at a time.

[run_run_run]

Okay I will do  24 48, I  just thought 96 was standered. Thanks again for the feedback.

[cleantone]

I should have said that 48 would be good if your not conerned with going to CD. I have been thinking about doing all 48k now that I use the iPod or my Mac and never CDR's anymore.

[run_run_run]

I should have said that 48 would be good if your not conerned with going to CD. I have been thinking about doing all 48k now that I use the iPod or my Mac and never CDR's anymore.

I can always downsample and keep a back up of 24/48.

[Chuck]

Go 24 bit 44.1 kHz.

[cleantone]

IF you go to CDR I would say stick with 44.1k. The difference is slight.

[run_run_run]

IF you go to CDR I would say stick with 44.1k. The difference is slight.

10 4 will do.