Record at 24/96, dither tracks and mix at 24/48?

[Chris Shaeffer]

I'm getting geared up to do a bit of an experiment and thought I'd ask first if someone esle has already done it/I'm wasting my time. I'll probably do it anyway because I want to HEAR it, but here's the idea:

I record with a Digi 002 that can do 88.2 and 96K. I can only get 10 tracks out of it at 88.2/96 K but I can get 18 out at 44.1/48K. I mix it analog, so the more individual outs I can get the better. Still, I'm wondering if I can take advantage of the higher sampling rates while still preserving my computer's resources for mixdown.

So I was thinking of recording at 24/96 to get the highest quality going in then dithering them in the box (with Peak) down to 24/48. Then they go into a new session and mixed analog at 24/48.

To make matters more complex, the final analog mix goes back into the computer via seperate convertors at 24/88.2 and dithered to 16/44.1 for cd. Of course, by the time anyone here gets to hear it it will probably be an MP3 and all differences will be completely gone, but... hey, I can try.

Known issues:
1) Too many A/D/A conversions.

Yeah, I know: recording digital and and mixing analog introduces additional D/A/D conversions that "degrade" the quality of the signal. It just sounds WAY better to me to mix it analog so its worth the conversion. I suppose I could do a mix in the box (at both 96 and 48k) but the different EQ's, effects, and compressors will make more difference in the sound than the analog vs. digital mix.

2) Which degrades the signal more: dithering from 96 to 48, or going analog out?

Good question, I suppose the only way to try and find out is to so a mix with 10 or less tracks so I can do 4 mixs:

1) 96K in the box
2) 96K analog
3) 48K dithered in the box
4) 48K analog

Anyway, those are my thoughts- all pretty inane I suppose, but I just want to know what the best way to use the equipment I have is. If I can hear a difference tracking at 96 and mixing at 48, then I'll do that from now on when I want the highest quality. If I can't- well, then I'll know and I won't be bothered wondering about it.

Anyone have any experience with this kind of silliness, or am I just spinning my wheels?

Take care,
Chris

 

[ssscientist]

Which degrades the signal more: dithering from 96 to 48, or going analog out?

Anyone have any experience with this kind of silliness, or am I just spinning my wheels?

It's not silliness. These are serious questions that all of us -- if we stick with it long enough -- are going to have to confront sooner or later.

My perspective on this is that many things are more important than the sample rate. Using quality microphones to their potential, having good players to record and having a solid song for them to play are all things that make good records and have for the 100+ year history of recording.

I rarely worry about sample rate and do most of my tracking @ 48kHz/24bit. Digital recording suffers from none of the analog anomalies (like 'warmth') -- if I want those, I have machines that will create them better and more controllably than accepting whatever comes back off the 2"...

I know this is probably not the answer you're looking for, but I'm feeling verbose tonight.

 

[Farview]

Without trying to get into the 49/96 debate, I have always benn under the impression that the less conversion you do, the better off you are. The benefit of 96k over 48k is not earth shattering, so I would go with the extra tracks and not bother with down sampling (dithering is for changing bit depth)

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Aha! Dithering is for changing bit depth... that's a key fact that has escaped me so far...

I knew I was missing something important. That gives me better insight into why sample rate conversions are so controversial. And why PT rigs in many installations are still run out to analog boards- the higher sampling rates pay off in the extra conversions and don't matter when the analog mix is reconverted to the master format.

ssscientist- no, that's eactly the kind of comment I was hoping for, really. I'm more just being curious aloud than attached to whatever response it evokes.

There's just a kind of disconnect between how most project/home studio folks use their equipment and how the large format studios use it. Those how rave about 96 and 192k have the rooms and equipment to make it mean something, perhaps. I've been in some cools spaces on some fantastic projects that you'd really want to capture with as much accuracy as possible so I get why the higher sampling rates are attractive.

I just want to know how its going to shake out at my level. I think I'll see if I can hear any difference with a 96K analog mix vs a 48K mix and go from there. That will avoid the downsampling issue. To test downsampling I can just downsample a file and A/B the 2 versions.

Cool. Thanks for the fresh insights. I knew I was missing something simple but important.

Take care,
Chris