Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,
Hello again, Has anyone tried. Tracking a song 96k and mixing to a 96k
master. Then track the same song ( different take) at 44k and mix to 44k master. No Cd masters involved. Would I hear much of a difference? Glenn. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,
wrote in message ... Hello again, Has anyone tried. Tracking a song 96k and mixing to a 96k master. Then track the same song ( different take) at 44k and mix to 44k master. No Cd masters involved. If you do everything the same, there would be no audible difference. But, tracking and mixing even the same thing twice at the same sample rate is likely to create two different things that sound different. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,
wrote:
Hello again, Has anyone tried. Tracking a song 96k and mixing to a 96k master. Then track the same song ( different take) at 44k and mix to 44k master. No Cd masters involved. I have done this, but I was using an analogue mixing console and no processing in the digital domain. Would I hear much of a difference? Depends on your converters, but probably not. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,
:-) I have your book....thank you for sharing your knowledge..I learned lot
from you... Thanks again "Bobby Owsinski" wrote in message news In article , wrote: Hello again, Has anyone tried. Tracking a song 96k and mixing to a 96k master. Then track the same song ( different take) at 44k and mix to 44k master. No Cd masters involved. Would I hear much of a difference? Glenn. I've done all the tests you can think of between 44.1, 48, 96 and 192k recording and mixing. Being a big proponent of 96k since it first became available, I changed my mind after doing the tests. In our tests, there was a huge difference between 192 and 48k. 192 sounded so close to real that it was scary. Dialing it back to 96k you could hear what seemed to be a little murkiness in the mid-range, which became really apparent when the 192 was compared to 48k, but the difference between 48 and 96k wasn't that great. The tests were conducted by recording a variety of acoustic instruments with a variety of popular convertors. Since we did these tests 3 or 4 years ago, I've gone back to recording everything at 48k since the difference in the sound and the hassle involved isn't worth the extra effort, in my opinion. 192k sounds great but is still impractical. 96k recording and mixing always seems to have some unforeseen problem at some point in the process that ends up taking time to solve that could've been better used for creating. 48k is a seamless workflow with the least hassle that sounds very good with the latest generation of convertors. We did some testing at 44.1 but have settle on 48k as a standard since so much of what we do ends up going to video at some point (48/16 is the video standard). Once again, this is only my opinion, but we did do a lot of testing to come to that conclusion. -- Bobby Owsinski Surround Associates http://www.surroundassociates.com Author: The Mixing Engineer's Handbook, The Recording Engineer's Handbook, The Mastering Engineer's Handbook Cengage Course Technologies Publishing |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mixing and tracking at 96k verses 44k?? | Pro Audio | |||
Mixing and Tracking at 96k verses 44k | Pro Audio | |||
Wireless headphones for tracking and mixing? | Pro Audio | |||
Headphones for studio work (tracking/mixing) | Pro Audio | |||
Comparing differences | Tech |