[Scott Dorsey]

James Price wrote:
Do you think it's the norm for most studios to track at 24/96 or 24/48? Or is it a mixed bag?

If the converters are perfect, the only thing the higher sampling rate buys
you is added bandwidth.

So, there are three reasons to use the higher sampling rate:

1. You are trying to record ultrasonics for later analysis that may make them
audible or create audible effects from them. Say you are recording bird
song for analysis or machine vibrations or you're making dubs of LPs that
will later go through noise reduction which will benefit from the ultrasonic
content for pop detection.

2. Your customer demands it.

3. Your converters are imperfect and happen to sound better at the higher rate.

And there are three reasons to use the lower sampling rate:

1. You are trying to avoid recording ultrasonics for fear that they will later
mix down and form audible distortion products in the audible region.

2. Your customer demands it.

3. Your converters are imperfect and happen to sound better at the lower rate.


Which one do you track at?

Having done A/B comparisons with my own converters, I think they sound better
at the lower rate. This might be because the clock stability is less crucial
and it may because of the ultrasonic filtering, or it might be some other
reason. But for that reason I will tend to record at 44.1 ksamp/sec.
This may not apply to anyone else's situation.

Now, that said, I have film customers who want everything at 48 ksamp/sec
and I'm happy to oblige them, as well as I am happy to oblige the folks who
want recordings at 96. They are paying the bill, if they demand that rate
for their own reasons that's fine by me.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."