It's my topic - so I decide, OK!Burillo wrote:all of that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.lfm wrote:I saw some expert panels from Pensados Place at some exhibition fair, or whatever it's called. The renowned awarded mixers and producers told how they moved everything to tape first.
Digital synths was a blessing in the sense oscillators didn't wander off - and needed constant retuning the first couple of hours it was running.
And we all know the amount of analog synths that are back with the analog things
It's not like - in the beginning there were nothing but ones and zeros
Any more input, please just throw it here....
Since it was too far fetched for some that belive the 16-bit digital is so perfect.
You loose nothing, and there is nothing to rescue.
Continue belive that, it's ok.
On the ongoing digital revolution there are plenty more things to arise.
New conversions to higher audio bitdepth with closer resemblance to original may be one them.
Various audio restore procedures exist already.
It's not like upscaling from DVD to 1080, or 1080 to 4k is unheard of.
Both these examples are better looking than on original resolution screens - done right.
There are smart algos for upscaling photos to printer resolution also.
Also downsizing photos 6000x4000 to video for time lapse video - using smart algos.
That is what I use for photo and film.
So why not smart upscaling bitdepth for audio????
Say just getting every sample probably 20% closer to original is a big win.
I'm pretty sure it exist, just not on the price levels we usually handle audio in daws. Restoration stuff of all sorts, old archives.
In real life it's not a biggy for me, I re-record most stuff. Just curious...