M
mentil69
New member
Hey i was wondering how a song recorded in 96 khz and 44.1 will differ in sound. and if they do, is it a big difference?
knightfly
GrouchyOldFartOnBatteries
Generally, if you use cheap gear and/or use a lot of synths/sound modules, you'd probably never notice the difference other than having less tracks in a project before you run into problems.
If you use quality gear, and record lots of "real" instruments/vocals, expecially strings/cymbals, you will probably notice a difference in clarity/sheen/etc, or if you have a lot of tracks in a project the mix will probably sound clearer.
The second biggest single change for better sound would be to use 24 bit options instead of 16, (more headroom with less loss of quality) and if using a DAW that allows it, enabling the mix for 32 bit floating point. This last can be done even with 16 bit hardware, and keeps mixing artifacts to a minimum.
The BIGGEST improvement is to learn each and every piece of gear you have, and how to get the best possible performance out of it. If you do this all the way through your signal chain, you won't believe the difference... Steve
If you use quality gear, and record lots of "real" instruments/vocals, expecially strings/cymbals, you will probably notice a difference in clarity/sheen/etc, or if you have a lot of tracks in a project the mix will probably sound clearer.
The second biggest single change for better sound would be to use 24 bit options instead of 16, (more headroom with less loss of quality) and if using a DAW that allows it, enabling the mix for 32 bit floating point. This last can be done even with 16 bit hardware, and keeps mixing artifacts to a minimum.
The BIGGEST improvement is to learn each and every piece of gear you have, and how to get the best possible performance out of it. If you do this all the way through your signal chain, you won't believe the difference... Steve
M
mentil69
New member
thanks man , i use the yamaha 2816, and i do use 24 bit with 44.1 khz, so that is good for me.
zer0sig
headpiece full of straw
i don't like the mathematical complexities of 96:44.1 downsampling. if i WERE to use a higher samplerate, i would go with 88.2 for mathematical simplicity, if i were keeping it in straight digital. that said, i am better at math than i am at recording, and your milage may vary. if you have the money to set up a serious amount of mastering equpiment, i wouldn't worry about it as much, but i just don't like the idea of using software calculations to downsample using equations involving a rather low greatest common factor. i'm sure someone here will have real practical feedback, but i can only contribute things that make sense to my (admittedly rather layman) mind.