0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: JasonSobel on May 30, 2005, 05:26:22 PMwhile DVD-V can only handle 48kHz or 96KHz, DVD-Audio discs can be burned at 44.1kHz.
Quote from: Josephine on May 30, 2005, 06:26:30 PMThanks for the links, Alex. +tHaving read through them, my next question is this: Besides fitting more music on to less media, what is the benefit to my storing masters on DVD?
Quote from: Lil' Kim Jong-Il on May 30, 2005, 10:26:16 PMQuote from: Josephine on May 30, 2005, 06:26:30 PMThanks for the links, Alex. +tHaving read through them, my next question is this: Besides fitting more music on to less media, what is the benefit to my storing masters on DVD?A benefit is that DVD can store explicit source information in the file system and also you can have menus with the song list. (I know that you can use CDtext but I don't know anyone who uses that regularly). If you take photos at shows or have images you like, you can author a disk with an image slideshow to go along with the music.Another thing (which may not be useful to many people), is that every CD transport model has different offsets, so there is really no way to reliably rip a CD and validate against a known fingerprint across platforms. A DVD uses a data file format, so if you want to test the finger print of a DVD, you can sum the files in the DVD file structure to ensure integrity against a known fingerprint.
Quote from: super-phat-al on May 30, 2005, 06:46:25 PMi record at 44.1 just because its easier with out having to resample
Quote from: discopanic1 on June 01, 2005, 07:28:32 PMIf you are gonna use Riverpast Audio Converter, then just record at 44.1 since there is a great loss in quality dealing with that software. I use CEP 2.0 when converting to 48k. I have SoundForge but haven't actually sit down to figure it out yet.
Quote from: leegeddy on May 30, 2005, 02:24:33 PMQuote from: Lil' Kim Jong-Il on May 30, 2005, 02:20:32 PMI always recorded at 48K because I argued that there was more frequency resolution. However, the difference between 44.1K and 48K is arguably not audible and 44.1 goes straight to CD without the additional step of having to down sample. So for most people going from DAT/JB3 to CCDA, I think 44.1 would be the most convenient rate to use.On the other hand, I'm getting ready to go back and read all my old DAT masters for authoring to DVD and the DVDV format will only support 48K and 96K LPCM rates. So I'm better off having 48K masters because I'd have to upsample 44.1k recordings to meet the format restrictions. I guess it comes down to how much inconvenience you want today in exchange for flexibility later. well said. i agree with you. personally, i always record at 48k since i do listen to dats more often at home.marc
Quote from: Lil' Kim Jong-Il on May 30, 2005, 02:20:32 PMI always recorded at 48K because I argued that there was more frequency resolution. However, the difference between 44.1K and 48K is arguably not audible and 44.1 goes straight to CD without the additional step of having to down sample. So for most people going from DAT/JB3 to CCDA, I think 44.1 would be the most convenient rate to use.On the other hand, I'm getting ready to go back and read all my old DAT masters for authoring to DVD and the DVDV format will only support 48K and 96K LPCM rates. So I'm better off having 48K masters because I'd have to upsample 44.1k recordings to meet the format restrictions. I guess it comes down to how much inconvenience you want today in exchange for flexibility later.