Originally Posted by John R Leddy

You could keep me straight on a few things:
· If replay files are to be the same spec as working files then 24-bit 96kHz is a reasonable compromise to address the requirements of studio work.

Originally Posted by Jim Lesurf[_2_]

That's my view, yes.

Originally Posted by John R Leddy

· There was mention of conversion introducing destructive effects to files.

Originally Posted by Jim Lesurf[_2_]

From the POV of real engineering *all* conversions should be expected to lose some detail or introduce some flaws. What is open to question is how small these degradations may be or if they matter in any given case. Done *well* the effects shouldn't matter. But my view is that now it is so easy to keep with 96k/24 that we can simply bypass any of the risk entailed by downcoversions. The best cables are the shortest ones that reach. :-)

Originally Posted by John R Leddy

· It was suggested conversion may be unnecessary due to large capacity storage devices being of little cost.
· The proposition was to avoid potential destruction due to conversion.
· The suggestion was further processing via hardware and software should be considered with care and preferably avoided.
· It was accepted practical issues and personal preferences would take precedence over the minutiae.
· The exercise of avoiding conversion was one of conservation and good practice.

Originally Posted by Jim Lesurf[_2_]

Yes, that's my view.