Bob's Mods
New member
The last nagging problem with digital recording for me is the track to track definition. I understand and have worked out solutions and methods for dealing with common problems that can arise in digital recording but track to track definition is one I must work around.
I am my own everything, writer, recording studio engineer, musician, janitor, singer, etc. My common method of recording is track layering. Although we may all have an unlimited track count, I have found this to be almost meaningless as piling on the tracks causes more and more loss of track mix definition. I have found that recording at 96kHz rather than 44dot1kHz reduces this problem greatly but I don't like the change in sonic character 96kHz gives me nor do I care for the how much resources it uses. I've also tracked at 48kHz and that does help provide for better track to track definition in a mix but not as good as 96kHz. My preference is to work at 44dot1kHz and massage the mix bring out the tracks.
I am my own everything, writer, recording studio engineer, musician, janitor, singer, etc. My common method of recording is track layering. Although we may all have an unlimited track count, I have found this to be almost meaningless as piling on the tracks causes more and more loss of track mix definition. I have found that recording at 96kHz rather than 44dot1kHz reduces this problem greatly but I don't like the change in sonic character 96kHz gives me nor do I care for the how much resources it uses. I've also tracked at 48kHz and that does help provide for better track to track definition in a mix but not as good as 96kHz. My preference is to work at 44dot1kHz and massage the mix bring out the tracks.