Registered: 05/24/01
Posts: 548
Loc: ,,UNITED STATES
Offline
Most people seem to agree that using 24bit converters into a 24bit file format and dithering to 16bit as a LAST step is the way to go for best quality. The main reason for keeping the file format 24bit is to have lots of headroom for editing so as to get the least amount of rounding errors when adding pluggin FX. My question is: Will the following setup give me equal results…
Record through 24bit converters into Cakewalk 9 into a 16 bit file format. Add all FX via an external mixer via 8 channel digital transfer (VM3100pro w/RPC-1 card). The only editing done in Cakewalk is non-destructive envelopes or destructive offline edits – no real-time FX. The results are mixed down to a VS880EX in master mode (16bit non-compressed).
Since you are planning on dumping the tracks down to your Roland, which is a 16-bit machine, then provided that you are not doing any processing from Cakewalk you should be fine using 16-bit resolution. In theory you might be able to hear some loss in clarity, but with most low end 24-bit audio cards the difference between recording at 16-bit and 24-bit isn't always that apparent. I'd try both methods to find out if it is worth using 24-bit. There are still a ton of good sounding records on the market that were made with what are now considered low-end 16-bit converters, so I wouldn't get too caught up all of the latest bit trends if you are happy with your results. I prefer to work at 24-bit whenever possible, but I don't cry when I'm forced to work with anything less.
