Re: [LAU] Track bouncing

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Steve Fosdick
<lists@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 13:47 +0300, Arda Eden wrote:
>> Sorry if this is discussed before but,
>>
>> Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
>> cubase or reason).
>> But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
>> all. They say that bouncing real-time
>> (like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo
>> track's input) is better resulting for audio quality.
>>
>> Now,
>> My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the
>> two because theoretically the software
>> should be writing the same data in both ways.
>
> I suspect the idea that high speed copying results in a reduction in
> quality comes from the days of analogue tape.
>
> With a digital workstation, as long as all processing modules use the
> correct sample clock, i.e. don't refer to any real-time hardware timers,
> the result should be identical regardless of whether the speed is "real
> time" or "as fast as possible".
>
> If the output is to a non-compressed format, like normal .wav files you
> could probably event run a side by side test and find that the 'cmp'
> command finds the files absolutely identical.
>
> Regards,
> Steve.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>

This could depend on the bit depth of the bounced track. If you are
working on the tracks in 32 bit float format (as you would with ardour
by default, for example), and you bounce to the CD standard 16 bit
integer, you will lose data.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Mar 30 20:15:03 2009