The PARIS Forums: PARIS: Main » Dither or Sample Rate convert First

Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Dither or Sample Rate convert First

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Dither or Sample Rate convert First [message #96497]

Mon, 03 March 2008 07:15

Lance Reichert

Messages: 39
Registered: July 2005

Member

Hey Folks,

I know very little about bit wizerdry. I'm a music hack.

Now that I'm recording mostly 24bit x 48KHz in PARIS
I'm wondering if the order of conversions matters; dither
or sample rate? -- sample rate, then dither?

I bow to those who know more.

TIA,

Lance

Report message to a moderator

Re: Dither or Sample Rate convert First [message #96498 is a reply to message #96497]

Mon, 03 March 2008 07:24

AlexPlasko

Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006

Senior Member

dither should be the last step. always.
"Lance Reichert" <lance.rocks@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47cc185e$1@linux...
> Hey Folks,
>
> I know very little about bit wizerdry. I'm a music hack.
>
> Now that I'm recording mostly 24bit x 48KHz in PARIS
> I'm wondering if the order of conversions matters; dither
> or sample rate? -- sample rate, then dither?
>
> I bow to those who know more.
>
> TIA,
>
> Lance
>
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Dither or Sample Rate convert First [message #96500 is a reply to message #96498]

Mon, 03 March 2008 08:30

Lance Reichert

Messages: 39
Registered: July 2005

Member

Thanks Alex!!

"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote in message
news:47cc1b4f$1@linux...
> dither should be the last step. always.
> "Lance Reichert" <lance.rocks@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:47cc185e$1@linux...
> > Hey Folks,
> >
> > I know very little about bit wizerdry. I'm a music hack.
> >
> > Now that I'm recording mostly 24bit x 48KHz in PARIS
> > I'm wondering if the order of conversions matters; dither
> > or sample rate? -- sample rate, then dither?
> >
> > I bow to those who know more.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Lance
> >
> >
>
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Dither or Sample Rate convert First [message #96502 is a reply to message #96498]

Mon, 03 March 2008 11:16

chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005

Senior Member

And never ever record at 48KHz :-)

Chuck
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>dither should be the last step. always.
>"Lance Reichert" <lance.rocks@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:47cc185e$1@linux...
>> Hey Folks,
>>
>> I know very little about bit wizerdry. I'm a music hack.
>>
>> Now that I'm recording mostly 24bit x 48KHz in PARIS
>> I'm wondering if the order of conversions matters; dither
>> or sample rate? -- sample rate, then dither?
>>
>> I bow to those who know more.
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Lance
>>
>>
>
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Dither or Sample Rate convert First [message #96504 is a reply to message #96502]

Mon, 03 March 2008 11:19

Aaron Allen

Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008

Senior Member

Agree for music production. If it's going to video and will be a 96k
upsample, then 48k is preferred.
To answer the original question: Dither is last step as Alex stated.
Haven't seen your name in quite a while Lance, how's it going?

AA

"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:47cc4096$1@linux...
>
> And never ever record at 48KHz :-)
>
> Chuck
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>>dither should be the last step. always.
>>"Lance Reichert" <lance.rocks@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:47cc185e$1@linux...
>>> Hey Folks,
>>>
>>> I know very little about bit wizerdry. I'm a music hack.
>>>
>>> Now that I'm recording mostly 24bit x 48KHz in PARIS
>>> I'm wondering if the order of conversions matters; dither
>>> or sample rate? -- sample rate, then dither?
>>>
>>> I bow to those who know more.
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>>
>>> Lance
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	quad core questions: Who's using 4 core?
Next Topic:	How do you use No-limit?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sun Feb 02 17:29:30 PST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00990 seconds