[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-5, 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?

Which one do you track at?

the reason to do all first / best need quality recording of raw tracks w/ at least 24/48 or 24/96 is not just individual track dynamic range - which is way beyond the dynamics of human music. The main reason in the digital age to use 24/48 at least (and 24/96 is ez to achieve these days in A/D/A and DSP systems and also allows very gentle slop anti-aliasing filters that start above human hearing to be used, which essentially have no phase effect on the 20-20 khz audio range music signal) is more the 24 bit over 16 bit part than the 48 versus 96 sample rate. When all the multitrack mix down and EQ is done digitally with DSP (in the box or with outboard digital gear) as opposed to being processed with outboard analog gear (like neve and or SSL quote current and or vintage super analog stuff) hooked to the multichannel A/D/A systems - is due to DSP math processing and acuumulated and compounded round off errors. All the DAW mixer and EQ engines these days (pro tools, cubase, sonar, etc) are 64 bit - and when processing 24 bit wav files -- the round off error all stay way above impacting the 24 accuracies of the individual track wav files...... i have listened to 16 and 24 bit wav files processed with 40 bit and 64 bit DSP - the 16 with 40 bit is horrid, the 24 bit is better but the 24 bit processed with DAWs and digital outboard gear using 64 bit math - are VERY audibly better overall, and ez to hear the difference even when dithered down to 16/44.1 CD and or compressed with a high rate MP3.