I do know that actually meeting the people you deal with on-line is always a good thing.

It has been that way for me and my Yamaha clients that I do on-line clinics with and finally get to meet when I do a road trip or a tour.

Adds a whole new dimension.

Perhaps some day.

Ian

Sorry Kingfrog, but I'm not sure you noticed the part of my post where I did question the need for higher sample rates. As a matter of course, I routinely track in 24/44.

As do the majority of amateurs, yet alone pros. Your views on this point are NOT in the majority and mine about higher sample rates are not universal, either... the studio I work at routinely uses 24/96, but that's because it's a PTHD system, so most of the work is done by cards.

I also offline a lot of processor work to a pair of UAD-1 cards (the best 'secret weapon' out there!) so even my puny underpowered 2001 Mac G4 733 is capable of 48+ tracks at 44.1. That's enough for just about anyone! (it's forty more than the Beatles needed )

The thing is, I respect your opinion to do things YOUR way, it's what you want to do. But as far as the benefits of 24bit go, you are in quite a small minority, even amongst amateurs, yet alone pros or semi-pros. The dithering issue (you should NEVER truncate!) is also a one time ONLY affair. You stay at 24 bit until the final step in the mastering process. And, once again, no offense, but the noise floor of your arranger, yet alone any other analog component in your recording chain, is higher than any noise added to dither to 16 bit. Once again, you are running contrary to the standard practices of just about everyone, amateur and pro alike.

I admit, the differences are slight. A bad mix, a bad mike placement, an overcooked master, all can ruin the sound far more than the difference between 24 and 16 bit. But just as you spend money to get a good mike, the minimal increase in horsepower needed to run at 24 bit (remember my lowly computer can easily handle it) is worth the difference it makes.

Feel free to continue doing things YOUR way... but others reading this thread MIGHT like to know whether your views are minority or not. This is not a 'pros vs. joes' issue. It's a 'Kingfrog vs. the world' issue, for the most part. Yes, a FEW still remain stubbornly at 16 bit. As a few cling stubbornly to their Portastudios. But the vast majority track, mix and master at 24 bit these days (THEN dither, not truncate, to 16 bit), have easily enough computer power to run it, and see no reason to do things the old fashioned way.

Of course, they are ALL wrong, aren't they?