Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] glennerd1@cox.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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."
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bobby Owsinski Bobby Owsinski is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 96k comparing to 44k Tracking and mixing,

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


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Goran Stojiljkovic Goran Stojiljkovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mixing and tracking at 96k verses 44k?? [email protected] Pro Audio 51 October 30th 08 01:59 AM
Mixing and Tracking at 96k verses 44k [email protected] Pro Audio 2 October 27th 08 09:50 PM
Wireless headphones for tracking and mixing? John Albert Pro Audio 10 December 2nd 05 01:39 AM
Headphones for studio work (tracking/mixing) ceedub Pro Audio 3 August 23rd 05 07:33 PM
Comparing differences Per Stromgren Tech 0 November 9th 04 10:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"