digital recording, Fostex MR8 vs. Zoom MRS8

[terry]

These two seem comparable in features and price, the Zoom runs $350,
vs $300 for the Fostex. I would like to hear any comments or
alternative ideas for someone who would like to get into digital
recording. I would like to limit my options to units that can stand
alone at a recording session for their mobility, although being able
to process the files later on my computer is important. Sorry if I'm
OT, but I'm a guitarist and I want to hear from a guitarist's point of
view. Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Terry

[CBERTON1950]

Post by terry
I would like to hear any comments or
alternative ideas for someone who would like to get into digital
recording.

I just got the Tascam Pocketstudio 5 over the weekend. A little complicated to
use at first, but I'm getting the hang of it after a couple sessions.I'm
looking forward to using it to make demos for future recording projects. It
makes a rather nice recording for my purposes, which are not unlike the uses
you describe. Price is similar to the two you mention here, so you might want
to as this model in your search.

Bob S
http://www.soundclick.com/bobspeidell

[b***@yahoo.com]

I second the motion on the Tascam Pocketstudio 5. It allows you to
export files to mp3 natively in the machine, which you can export to
your PC or Mac via USB. Easily burned to CD from there.

[terry]

Thanks, I hadn't considered this one.

Post by b***@yahoo.com
I second the motion on the Tascam Pocketstudio 5. It allows you to
export files to mp3 natively in the machine, which you can export to
your PC or Mac via USB. Easily burned to CD from there.

[misifus]

Post by b***@yahoo.com
I second the motion on the Tascam Pocketstudio 5. It allows you to
export files to mp3 natively in the machine, which you can export to
your PC or Mac via USB. Easily burned to CD from there.

If I thought anything I was likely to record would be worth a CD,
I think I'd like to be able to record to a less lossy format than
MP3. If it's worth recording, AIFF or similar would be what I
would want to save the finished product in.

-Raf

[Mike brown]

Post by terry
These two seem comparable in features and price, the Zoom runs $350,
vs $300 for the Fostex. I would like to hear any comments or
alternative ideas for someone who would like to get into digital
recording. I would like to limit my options to units that can stand
alone at a recording session for their mobility, although being able
to process the files later on my computer is important. Sorry if I'm
OT, but I'm a guitarist and I want to hear from a guitarist's point of
view. Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Terry

Mine is probably bigger and more expensive than you want or need, but I
use a Yamaha AW16G with a built in burner.

It does an excellent job, and it is easy to download the files onto a
computer (this is what I do, though you can do the whole bit on the
Yamaha).

I take mine out to clubs and so on to record the performers, just put it
in a soft overnight bag with the cables, mics, and headphones, and away.

MJRB

[hg]

Go with the Fostek MR-8. I had the Tascam Pocketstudio 5 for a while,
but sold it, as it is really only set up to record from electric
guitars and high impedance mics, so you'll have signal amplitude
problems with acoustic pickups and condenser mics without adding a
preamp or mixer, plus there's no advantage to recording directly to
MP3. I got a Boss BR-864, which is comparable to the Fostek, and
probably would have gone with the Fostek MR-8 if I'd heard of it sooner.

[Tom Loredo]

Been a while since I looked at this, but I think the Fostex is
the only machine of this ilk that records without lossy compression.
FWIW....

Peace,
Tom

[foldedpath]

Post by Tom Loredo
Been a while since I looked at this, but I think the Fostex is
the only machine of this ilk that records without lossy compression.
FWIW....

The more expensive Roland standalone recorders like the VS-2480 series can
record uncompressed, but that's probably outside the OP's budget.

If you only need a live stereo recorder and not a multitracker,
Roland/Edirol just announced a new "R-1" compact flashcard recorder with
linear uncompressed 24 bit/44.1 kHz .wav file recording:

http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r1.html

You'd want a bigger card than it comes with, if you were doing a lot of 24-
bit uncompressed recording. I don't know if this has been confirmed, but I
think the price is around $500.

I guess this is supposed to be an uncompressed, 24-bit alternative to the
new higher-density Sony minidisk format. Note the built-in stereo mics.
You'd have to add a mic preamp and better mic's to do any serious field or
remote recording. But some folks here might find it a useful alternative,
so I thought I'd mention it.

[George W.]

Post by Tom Loredo
Been a while since I looked at this, but I think the Fostex is
the only machine of this ilk that records without lossy compression.
FWIW....
Peace,
Tom

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. Beyond this is the fact that the
wave files from each track of the MR-8 can be directly dragged and
dropped to the PC via USB without the need for any conversion utility.
The individual tracks from a song will sync up perfectly in any
editing program. The other recorders will do this as well, there's
just an extra step involved. If the Zoom isn't USB you'll need a card
reader as well.

G.

[terry]

Thank you all for your input. I have found another one that I'm
considering: the Boss BR-864 at $400, which is just about as far as I
can stretch it. This one seems to have good guitar effects, as well
as a good drum machine on it.

Terry

[hg]

The BR-864 is very nice - that's what I bought after selling the Tascam
Pocketstudio 5. Easy to use, definitely has a good drum synthesizer
and lots of guitar/mic effects. Note that while one of the inputs is
XLR, it doesn't provide phantom power (I don't think the Fostek does
either), but I have an external preamp. With either the Fostek MR-8 or
BR-864, you won't go wrong.

[terry]

Thanks, hg, this seems like a very nice unit..

Post by hg
The BR-864 is very nice - that's what I bought after selling the Tascam
Pocketstudio 5. Easy to use, definitely has a good drum synthesizer
and lots of guitar/mic effects. Note that while one of the inputs is
XLR, it doesn't provide phantom power (I don't think the Fostek does
either), but I have an external preamp. With either the Fostek MR-8 or
BR-864, you won't go wrong.

[sycochkn]

I would recommend an external preamp whith phantom power for any of the
recorders. The MR-8 does not sound especially good with the internal
preamps. Paid 200 dollars for my MR-8 "demo unit" and 800 dollars for the
mics, preamps etc. A 24 bit recorder that would record more than two tracks
at a time would have been preferred.

Bob

Post by hg
The BR-864 is very nice - that's what I bought after selling the Tascam
Pocketstudio 5. Easy to use, definitely has a good drum synthesizer
and lots of guitar/mic effects. Note that while one of the inputs is
XLR, it doesn't provide phantom power (I don't think the Fostek does
either), but I have an external preamp. With either the Fostek MR-8 or
BR-864, you won't go wrong.

[George W.]

Post by sycochkn
would recommend an external preamp whith phantom power for any of the
recorders. The MR-8 does not sound especially good with the internal
preamps. Paid 200 dollars for my MR-8 "demo unit" and 800 dollars for the
mics, preamps etc. A 24 bit recorder that would record more than two tracks
at a time would have been preferred.

Well, yeah............but at $300 (not to mention the $200 you paid)
it's hard to imagine anything better. The value of 24 bits and more
tracks at once for someone doing acoustic guitar and vocals with a
minimum of editing is questionable anyway. In any case few of those 24
bit units standalone units come with the best preamps and phantom
power so you'll probably need them anyway.

It seems to me that if you can't hear the difference you don't need
it. I suppose there are people who can tell a 24 bit recording from a
16 bit but I doubt there are many. I would guess it depends somewhat
on the material.........

G.

G.

[Paul Asbell]

Post by George W.

Post by sycochkn
would recommend an external preamp whith phantom power for any of the
recorders. The MR-8 does not sound especially good with the internal
preamps. Paid 200 dollars for my MR-8 "demo unit" and 800 dollars for the
mics, preamps etc. A 24 bit recorder that would record more than two tracks
at a time would have been preferred.

Well, yeah............but at $300 (not to mention the $200 you paid)
it's hard to imagine anything better. The value of 24 bits and more
tracks at once for someone doing acoustic guitar and vocals with a
minimum of editing is questionable anyway.

Hmmm... not so sure about that.

My newest acoustic gtr-based recording is being recorded in 24 bit, at
the same studio that previously recorded the previous project, which was
16 bit. The engineers are fairly insistent that the 24 bit tracks sound
a good deal "airier" and "unveiled", and I'm pretty sure i can hear the
difference as well...:)

But perhaps that's arguably a sonic subtlety.

OTOH, the "2 tracks at once" issue appears like a no-brainer. Standard
minimum for recording an acoustic gtr track is 2 mics... there's your
limit. Wanna add an "over-the-shoulder" mic for a bit more air and
dimension... sorry. Does your guitar have a pickup in it? Maybe a
dual-source, w/ an internal mic? Recording all the sources, in order to
create the best possible composite, would be nice, and is done all the
time... but you're now already talkin' 4-5 tracks.

Of course, you might want to record using a click track. If you are
planning on overdubbing another player, or part, at any time... that'd
be almost a must... but that's another track, of course.

Oh yeah... forgot about vocals. You'll be forced to record them on
overdub, which isn't a bad idea anyway- at least for the best sonics-
but some folks feel that they are SO used to singing along w/ their
guitar that that'd be their best option... but it's NOT an option 'cuz
you can only record on 2 tracks.

Post by George W.
In any case few of those 24
bit units standalone units come with the best preamps and phantom
power so you'll probably need them anyway.

Agreed.

Post by George W.
It seems to me that if you can't hear the difference you don't need
it. I suppose there are people who can tell a 24 bit recording from a
16 bit but I doubt there are many. I would guess it depends somewhat
on the material.........

Airiness on acoustic instruments is one of those places where the
difference IS audible... though subtle.


Paul


Paul Asbell
***@paulasbell.com
www.paulasbell.com

[George W.]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:36:47 GMT, Paul Asbell wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paul Asbell

Post by George W.
It seems to me that if you can't hear the difference you don't need
it. I suppose there are people who can tell a 24 bit recording from a
16 bit but I doubt there are many. I would guess it depends somewhat
on the material.........

Airiness on acoustic instruments is one of those places where the
difference IS audible... though subtle.
Paul

I stand corrected by Paul, who knows a LOT more about this than me.
I've been using the 24 bit setting myself because it's there and I
have the drive space. I admit I don't really hear a difference but
with givin my inexperience and cheapo equipments that's not
surprising. One distinction here, and correct me if I'm wrong: The use
of 24 bit is mostly for recording, where it probably makes sense, but
in the end most things are mixed to 16 bit. As far as I know that's
the standard for CD's. So.....does the improvement of 24 bit remain
after mixdown to 16 bit?

G.

[Paul Asbell]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[George W.]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:02:40 GMT, Paul Asbell wrote:

<snip for space>

Post by Paul Asbell
I hope i made clear in my original post that I thought the 2
track-at-a-time limitation might be more serious, if one wished to do
high-aspiration acoustic gtr recordings... perhaps not a limitation for
DEMOS, but for recording itself.

Thanks for the explanations, Paul. Yes, you were very clear on the 2
track-at-once limitation, missing in most of the low-end recorders.
Still....and I may be stepping a bit backward here....there are many
wonderful recordings done directly to two tracks. As I write this I'm
listening to a little known 1986 self-titled album by T-Bone Burnett
recorded...so it says....directly to two tracks. (Still $6.99 in the
bargain bin on Amazon.)

Back to mono........<g>

G.

[Paul Asbell]

Post by George W.
<snip for space>

Post by Paul Asbell
I hope i made clear in my original post that I thought the 2
track-at-a-time limitation might be more serious, if one wished to do
high-aspiration acoustic gtr recordings... perhaps not a limitation for
DEMOS, but for recording itself.

Thanks for the explanations, Paul. Yes, you were very clear on the 2
track-at-once limitation, missing in most of the low-end recorders.
Still....and I may be stepping a bit backward here....there are many
wonderful recordings done directly to two tracks. As I write this I'm
listening to a little known 1986 self-titled album by T-Bone Burnett
recorded...so it says....directly to two tracks. (Still $6.99 in the
bargain bin on Amazon.)

No doubt there are, and will continue to be.. thank God!

But a quick distinction... many excellent, complex productions have been
recorded direct to 2 tracks. But often, they certainly weren't actually
two CHANNELS of signal... but rather anywhere from 2 to 48 channels of
signaled, carefully mixed to stereo beforehand, and then recorded to 2
tracks. T-Bone's recording may have been like that... I dunno.

[Mike brown]

Post by George W.
<snip for space>

Post by Paul Asbell
I hope i made clear in my original post that I thought the 2
track-at-a-time limitation might be more serious, if one wished to do
high-aspiration acoustic gtr recordings... perhaps not a limitation for
DEMOS, but for recording itself.

Thanks for the explanations, Paul. Yes, you were very clear on the 2
track-at-once limitation, missing in most of the low-end recorders.
Still....and I may be stepping a bit backward here....there are many
wonderful recordings done directly to two tracks. As I write this I'm
listening to a little known 1986 self-titled album by T-Bone Burnett
recorded...so it says....directly to two tracks. (Still $6.99 in the
bargain bin on Amazon.)
Back to mono........<g>
G.

Some of my favourite albums were cut direct to disc (in the vinyl days).

MJRB

[Mike brown]

snipped some good stuff

Post by Paul Asbell
I hope i made clear in my original post that I thought the 2
track-at-a-time limitation might be more serious, if one wished to do
high-aspiration acoustic gtr recordings... perhaps not a limitation for
DEMOS, but for recording itself.
Paul
Paul Asbell
www.paulasbell.com

I rarely use more than three of my 16 (8 + 4 stereo) tracks, but have on
occasion. It's nice to have them "up your sleeve".

MJRB

[Francis Guidry]

Post by George W.
<snip>

Post by Paul Asbell

Post by George W.
It seems to me that if you can't hear the difference you don't need
it. I suppose there are people who can tell a 24 bit recording from a
16 bit but I doubt there are many. I would guess it depends somewhat
on the material.........

Airiness on acoustic instruments is one of those places where the
difference IS audible... though subtle.
Paul

I stand corrected by Paul, who knows a LOT more about this than me.
I've been using the 24 bit setting myself because it's there and I
have the drive space. I admit I don't really hear a difference but
with givin my inexperience and cheapo equipments that's not
surprising. One distinction here, and correct me if I'm wrong: The use
of 24 bit is mostly for recording, where it probably makes sense, but
in the end most things are mixed to 16 bit. As far as I know that's
the standard for CD's. So.....does the improvement of 24 bit remain
after mixdown to 16 bit?
G.

According to the pro engineers who post at rec.audio.pro, the 24 bit
word length is significant because:

1. it improves dynamic range. This allows recording at lower levels to
avoid dreaded digital clipping while still retaining high accuracy at
these lower levels.

2. it improves the accuracy of dynamic processing. Gain changes, from
compression and limiting to normalization to simple volume changes,
introduce errors due to rounding of the least significant bits of the
digital word. With 24 bit recording these errors are lopped off in the
process of converting to 16 bit CD format.

Clipping and rounding errors contribute to the bad aspects of digital
recording, the harshness, graininess, and lack of warmth often
mentioned. Recording without clipping at 24 bits, and doing all
processing in 24 bits, then converting to 16 bits as the final step
should result in better quality.

As you might expect, these same pros suggest that the advertised 24
bit capability of some of these low cost systems is a marketing trick,
with the actual circuitry limiting the results to some lower figure
even though data is stored in a 24 bit format, but even those systems
are better than 16 bit quality.

Fran

[foldedpath]

Post by George W.
I stand corrected by Paul, who knows a LOT more about this than me.
I've been using the 24 bit setting myself because it's there and I
have the drive space. I admit I don't really hear a difference but
with givin my inexperience and cheapo equipments that's not
surprising. One distinction here, and correct me if I'm wrong: The use
of 24 bit is mostly for recording, where it probably makes sense, but
in the end most things are mixed to 16 bit. As far as I know that's
the standard for CD's. So.....does the improvement of 24 bit remain
after mixdown to 16 bit?

This gets complicated. :) And I may not understand this all that well, so
anyone out there, please feel free to jump in with corrections.

24 bits gives you more headroom, and less need to slam the A/D converters
to "use all the bits" and get a low noise floor.

But 16 bits can work fine... *if* you're not messing with the signal very
much after you record it.

The more important issue is what format you store your audio files in (16,
24, or 32 bit/float) and how much destructive audio processing you do after
recording.

If you record a multitrack song in 16 bits, hot enough for a low noise
floor, and then don't mess with it... you don't add a lot of EQ, or volume
changes, or compression... then bounce a final stereo 16 bit .wav file out
of your editing software... you may not lose any significant audio quality.
In fact it may even sound better than recording in 24 bits and then doing a
dither and bit reduction down to 16 bits (assuming your A/D converters are
very good).

The problem with 16 bits arises during processing like EQ, volume change,
and effects like compression during mixdown. These are all math operations
which result in something called digital word length expansion. You may get
rounding errors (digital noise) when the audio is converted back down to 16
bits for burning to a CD, or an MP3 conversion.

The major DAW software packages (Cubase/Nuendo, Logic, Sonar, ProTools,
Samplitude, etc.) operate at a high internal bit resolution when you're
mixing, usually something like 48 or 56 bits fixed, or 32 point floating.
This allows for rounding errors after word length expansion, and that's why
you want to write a 24 or 32 bit file after doing any destructive wave
editing. It's not so much of a problem with non-destructive editors. But
it's still a good idea, if possible, to store your intermediate mix files
in 24 bit or 32 bit format. Then convert to 16 bits at the very last stage
of the process, just before converting to an MP3 or burning an audio disk.
Make sure you use a dither process when moving from 32 or 24 bits to 16
bits.

In case that wasn't clear (and this stuff really makes my head hurt
sometimes), here's the short version:

If your recording is fairly basic... like a live 2-track recording and you
don't add EQ or volume changes, or compression, or reverb... then it can
sound very good going straight from a 16 bit recording to a 16 bit MP3 or
audio disk. Otherwise, use 24 bits. Especially with hard drive storage
being so cheap now.

P.S. And also stick to 44.1 kHz sampling rate, unless you have a very good
reason to use something higher.

[Paul Asbell]

Post by foldedpath

Post by George W.
I stand corrected by Paul, who knows a LOT more about this than me.
I've been using the 24 bit setting myself because it's there and I
have the drive space. I admit I don't really hear a difference but
with givin my inexperience and cheapo equipments that's not
surprising. One distinction here, and correct me if I'm wrong: The use
of 24 bit is mostly for recording, where it probably makes sense, but
in the end most things are mixed to 16 bit. As far as I know that's
the standard for CD's. So.....does the improvement of 24 bit remain
after mixdown to 16 bit?

This gets complicated. :) And I may not understand this all that well, so
anyone out there, please feel free to jump in with corrections.
24 bits gives you more headroom, and less need to slam the A/D converters
to "use all the bits" and get a low noise floor.
But 16 bits can work fine... *if* you're not messing with the signal very
much after you record it.
The more important issue is what format you store your audio files in (16,
24, or 32 bit/float) and how much destructive audio processing you do after
recording.
If you record a multitrack song in 16 bits, hot enough for a low noise
floor, and then don't mess with it... you don't add a lot of EQ, or volume
changes, or compression... then bounce a final stereo 16 bit .wav file out
of your editing software... you may not lose any significant audio quality.
In fact it may even sound better than recording in 24 bits and then doing a
dither and bit reduction down to 16 bits (assuming your A/D converters are
very good).
The problem with 16 bits arises during processing like EQ, volume change,
and effects like compression during mixdown. These are all math operations
which result in something called digital word length expansion. You may get
rounding errors (digital noise) when the audio is converted back down to 16
bits for burning to a CD, or an MP3 conversion.
The major DAW software packages (Cubase/Nuendo, Logic, Sonar, ProTools,
Samplitude, etc.) operate at a high internal bit resolution when you're
mixing, usually something like 48 or 56 bits fixed, or 32 point floating.
This allows for rounding errors after word length expansion, and that's why
you want to write a 24 or 32 bit file after doing any destructive wave
editing. It's not so much of a problem with non-destructive editors. But
it's still a good idea, if possible, to store your intermediate mix files
in 24 bit or 32 bit format. Then convert to 16 bits at the very last stage
of the process, just before converting to an MP3 or burning an audio disk.
Make sure you use a dither process when moving from 32 or 24 bits to 16
bits.
In case that wasn't clear (and this stuff really makes my head hurt
If your recording is fairly basic... like a live 2-track recording and you
don't add EQ or volume changes, or compression, or reverb... then it can
sound very good going straight from a 16 bit recording to a 16 bit MP3 or
audio disk. Otherwise, use 24 bits. Especially with hard drive storage
being so cheap now.
P.S. And also stick to 44.1 kHz sampling rate, unless you have a very good
reason to use something higher.

To the best of my own knowledge, everything Mike sez' here is correct.

And, to bring it back to original context... for demo quality stuff, or
when the gear being used to record is less inexpensive stuff, little of
this head-hurting stuff really matters much.

But at some point, when going for a really nice acoustic guitar
recording, it DOES.


Paul


Paul Asbell
***@paulasbell.com
www.paulasbell.com

[John Youngblood]

Post by Paul Asbell

Post by George W.

Post by sycochkn
would recommend an external preamp whith phantom power for any of the
recorders. The MR-8 does not sound especially good with the internal
preamps. Paid 200 dollars for my MR-8 "demo unit" and 800 dollars for the
mics, preamps etc. A 24 bit recorder that would record more than two tracks
at a time would have been preferred.

Well, yeah............but at $300 (not to mention the $200 you paid)
it's hard to imagine anything better. The value of 24 bits and more
tracks at once for someone doing acoustic guitar and vocals with a
minimum of editing is questionable anyway.

Hmmm... not so sure about that.
My newest acoustic gtr-based recording is being recorded in 24 bit, at
the same studio that previously recorded the previous project, which was
16 bit. The engineers are fairly insistent that the 24 bit tracks sound
a good deal "airier" and "unveiled", and I'm pretty sure i can hear the
difference as well...:)
But perhaps that's arguably a sonic subtlety.
OTOH, the "2 tracks at once" issue appears like a no-brainer. Standard
minimum for recording an acoustic gtr track is 2 mics... there's your
limit. Wanna add an "over-the-shoulder" mic for a bit more air and
dimension... sorry. Does your guitar have a pickup in it? Maybe a
dual-source, w/ an internal mic? Recording all the sources, in order to
create the best possible composite, would be nice, and is done all the
time... but you're now already talkin' 4-5 tracks.
Of course, you might want to record using a click track. If you are
planning on overdubbing another player, or part, at any time... that'd
be almost a must... but that's another track, of course.
Oh yeah... forgot about vocals. You'll be forced to record them on
overdub, which isn't a bad idea anyway- at least for the best sonics-
but some folks feel that they are SO used to singing along w/ their
guitar that that'd be their best option... but it's NOT an option 'cuz
you can only record on 2 tracks.

Post by George W.
In any case few of those 24
bit units standalone units come with the best preamps and phantom
power so you'll probably need them anyway.

Agreed.

Post by George W.
It seems to me that if you can't hear the difference you don't need
it. I suppose there are people who can tell a 24 bit recording from a
16 bit but I doubt there are many. I would guess it depends somewhat
on the material.........

Airiness on acoustic instruments is one of those places where the
difference IS audible... though subtle.
Paul
Paul Asbell
www.paulasbell.com

I bought the Fostex MR-8 about a year ago when it first came out as I
had grown tired of messing around with my laptop (with protools) and
the setup involved. I use the Fostex (4 tracks with add'l tracks to
bounce to, by the way) as a scratchbook with the side benefit of having
quality that's good enough to use later if desired. I leave it hooked
up to an inexpensive mixer (w/reverb) and use it as 1. An ego check &
2. for recording a rhythm or accompaniment track. For me, the setup
involved in nearly all recording setups dampens my motivation as time
goes on, and having an immediate recording capability that was
inexpensive yet great sounding was an appealling choice.
For the demo I'm preparing, I'm using a professional studio with the
belief that there are things that an engineer and outside ear can bring
that are quite helpful (in addition to the gear quality and 24 bit
thing). But that doesn't change my conviction about the sketchbook
benefits that this kind of tool offers.

John Youngblood

[Paul Asbell]

Post by John Youngblood
I bought the Fostex MR-8 about a year ago when it first came out as I
had grown tired of messing around with my laptop (with protools) and
the setup involved. I use the Fostex (4 tracks with add'l tracks to
bounce to, by the way) as a scratchbook with the side benefit of having
quality that's good enough to use later if desired. I leave it hooked
up to an inexpensive mixer (w/reverb) and use it as 1. An ego check & 2. for recording a rhythm or accompaniment track. For me, the setup
involved in nearly all recording setups dampens my motivation as time
goes on, and having an immediate recording capability that was
inexpensive yet great sounding was an appealling choice.
For the demo I'm preparing, I'm using a professional studio with the
belief that there are things that an engineer and outside ear can bring
that are quite helpful (in addition to the gear quality and 24 bit
thing). But that doesn't change my conviction about the sketchbook
benefits that this kind of tool offers.
John Youngblood

I'm sure you hardly need me to pipe in and amen that... but i will...:)

The demo thing is incredibly valuable, and even if one DID have
extremely high audio potential available to you at home, that stuff
takes TIME... lots of it, lots o' signal path savvy and fairly high
patience as well... at a time when you'd probably rather be creative.

It's hard doing both the job of engineer AND musician decently... it's
hard enough doing ONE of them decently.

[foldedpath]

Post by Paul Asbell
My newest acoustic gtr-based recording is being recorded in 24 bit, at
the same studio that previously recorded the previous project, which
was 16 bit. The engineers are fairly insistent that the 24 bit tracks
sound a good deal "airier" and "unveiled", and I'm pretty sure i can
hear the difference as well...:)
But perhaps that's arguably a sonic subtlety.

This is just a wild-ass guess, but it's possible that you're hearing
"airier and unvieled" more as a result of general improvement in A/D
converter techonolgy over the years, as your studio has upgraded their gear
(and maybe also their preamps)... rather than the 16 to 24 bit difference,
per se.

[Paul Asbell]

Post by foldedpath

Post by Paul Asbell
My newest acoustic gtr-based recording is being recorded in 24 bit, at
the same studio that previously recorded the previous project, which
was 16 bit. The engineers are fairly insistent that the 24 bit tracks
sound a good deal "airier" and "unveiled", and I'm pretty sure i can
hear the difference as well...:)
But perhaps that's arguably a sonic subtlety.

This is just a wild-ass guess, but it's possible that you're hearing
"airier and unvieled" more as a result of general improvement in A/D
converter techonolgy over the years, as your studio has upgraded their gear
(and maybe also their preamps)... rather than the 16 to 24 bit difference,
per se.

I hear you... but the engineers I work with daily have used Apogee A/D,
Millennia pres, etc right along, and I trust them to know the
difference... and they don't doubt for a second the audible superiority
of 24 bit.

But, again... all the gear needs to be very hi-quality for the
difference to be significant.

[foldedpath]

Post by Paul Asbell

Post by foldedpath
This is just a wild-ass guess, but it's possible that you're hearing
"airier and unvieled" more as a result of general improvement in A/D
converter techonolgy over the years, as your studio has upgraded their
gear (and maybe also their preamps)... rather than the 16 to 24 bit
difference, per se.

I hear you... but the engineers I work with daily have used Apogee
A/D, Millennia pres, etc right along, and I trust them to know the
difference... and they don't doubt for a second the audible
superiority of 24 bit.
But, again... all the gear needs to be very hi-quality for the
difference to be significant.

Roger that. With A/D and preamps of that quality (and assuming equally good
monitors and room treatment), the difference in noise floor and headroom
should be obvious.