I record all tracks in 16/44.1 quality. I have no muddy mix as long as I mix it right with my Tascam analog mixer. It's a natural effect that an analog mix gives you a much better dynamic access than a digital mix. The analog mixer adds volume (voltage) levels from each channel to one resulting master (voltage) level each quantum jump of a second. The digital mixer adds bits and bytes in a time fixed task window and at the end there are still remaining numbers at a position after decimal point which causes some interesting side effects.

I think the recording way I've decided to go is called ADD. It's an Analog mix, a Digital recording and a Digitally mastered CD is the result...

I think it's a little bit too early to talk about DVDs as a replacement for CDs. First, a CD offers up to 80 minutes song space which is more than enough for the most music productions. Second, the most households are using hifi systems with standard CD players (some are still using record players and their amount is growing but that's another story). Third, DVDs are good for films/videos which need much disc space but you could save whole rock samplers on one DVD...

Three years ago I tried a recording at true 32 bit @44.1kHz resolution. The result wasn't amazing me (it simply sounded the same like a 16/44.1 wave). So, I decided to go on with 16 bit because of the minor needed disc space and the faster data transfer access speed. Also, I do not plan to record on other mediums than on CDs. I still don't use DVDs (though I have a DVD drive) because I'm still using floppy discs for 5 different systems (two of them are synths) and CDs for three different computer systems. I'm still having my venyls, my music CDs, my VHS cassettes and my music casettes. I don't really need a new medium in my museum...
...the more that this medium isn't very clear to me (+ or -, R or W, or what else?). Is it really necessary to bombard the world with tech and more tech only for financials? Why can't we get a product which is really needful AND clear to everyone?

I don't really understand the fuss around the new and fascinating technologies. The most were possible many years ago but nobody took care of it. Why so today? Maybe it's a mass phenomena...I don't know...

24/192 means nothing!!! Why this? Hmm, it would mean a lot but the main point are the converters. You need very good ADCs and DACs which can provide you the whole range of the required resolution. So, it's not unusual that today's recordings at 16/44.1 mostly sound better than recordings at 24/96 or 24/192 because the technology for 16/44.1 AD/DA converting still is much further developed than the new 24/192 technology. But you'll have to pay a lot for those converters. Why do you think are high quality music gears so expensive? They try to use the best material they can get for this price.

I don't know how long it will take until this advantage will be lost. Look back! How long did it last until the 16/44.1 converters came to their today's level? I would tend to say they will get it for the 24/192 converters in half the time but who knows? Maybe they'll get it faster...

The most computers were made for several things but they aren't specialized for music (all but one - Atari). You'll have to deal with what you have. No software is really able to wipe out the fact that the hardware can't deliver more than its physical ability. It's only virtuality...

Yes, I'm using samples but I'm not very proud to do so!
Have a nice day and sleep well tonight! Music is a friend with a big heart. I love ya'll, my friends...

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 09-29-2005).]