24bit/96k

  • Thread starter Thread starter MichaelM
  • Start date Start date
MichaelM

MichaelM

New member
Just wandering what people's views on 96k recordings are, because I just finished tracking 11 songs for my band and it's becoming a bit of a problem a problem mixing because my computer can't keep up and I'm getting dropouts more often. Never had this problem before....
 
I generally track at 24/48 and mixdown (analog) to 24/88............
 
blue bear...are you serious? you mean i've been recording at 96 when i could do this at 48 with the same results?
 
distortedrumble said:
blue bear...are you serious? you mean i've been recording at 96 when i could do this at 48 with the same results?
Click to expand...
IMO, yes! OMMV.................
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
I generally track at 24/48 and mixdown (analog) to 24/88............
Click to expand...

Why 48, ie why not track at 88?

Also if you've tracked at 48 what's the benefit of mixdown at 88?
 
Bulls Hit said:
Why 48, ie why not track at 88?

Also if you've tracked at 48 what's the benefit of mixdown at 88?
Click to expand...

1. i'm not bear but for the first question most likely a question of track count, plug-in count, storage and stabibility.

2. give the ME highest quality possible for them to use there goodies, also 88/96 does usually sound better then 48/44..more open up top and tighter bottom
 
Bulls Hit said:
Why 48, ie why not track at 88?

Also if you've tracked at 48 what's the benefit of mixdown at 88?
Click to expand...
I track to an HD24, which doesn't do 88Khz -- and even if it did, I'm not convinced the additional storage is worth it. 24-bit/48KHz sounds pretty damn good to my ears -- and I'm picky!

I mixdown to 88KHz because as Teacher pointed out - for mixdown, it only makes sense to mix to the highest resolution possible to accommmodate further digital processing, and since I'm mixing analog, I don't have to worry about maintaining the same resolution from tracking thru to mixing. Storage is less of a consideration since it's only 2 track so the trade-off in that case makes sense.

I don't use 96 because the math is slightly simpler when dumbing-down the processed mixes for current Redbook audio standards (44.1KHz).........
 
Sorry if I sound stupid, but I want to get this clear.

You record @ 24/48 on your HD.

When you say mixing analog, do you mean you convert the digital signal on your HD to analog, mix it, then convert back to digital, and store on your PC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top