On 9/11/05, Joseph Dell'Orfano <fullgo@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am looking for some engineering know-how and advice. Should I track at
> 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz or 96 kHz?
>
> I record vocals and acoustic guitar for the most part. I have been
> routinely recording at 24 bits, 96 kHz simply because I can and I assume
> that this gets me the highest fidelity from my recordings (tracking
> through AKG Solidtube or a pair of Oktava condensers and a Pendulum
> Audio SPS-1 preamp to Delta 1010LT into Jack/Ardour). After a discussion
> with a friend, Iīm not so sure anymore. He is recording his album at
> 44.1 kHz, arguing that this will avoid downsampling when finally
> pressing a CD. So, are there any opinions about this?
>
> There is a very practical issue here. I am contemplating the addition of
> an outboard digital effects processor to take some load off my CPU. Most
> units (less than $1000) with s/pdif are 44.1 and 48 kHz, so they would
> not work (I donīt think) with digital audio recorded at 96 kHz.
>
> Thanks for all the help you've given me in the past. I hope I am not
> coming to the well too many times!!
>
> -Joe Dell'Orfano
>
> --
> Joseph Dell'Orfano <fullgo@email-addr-hidden>
>
>
If you do blind listening tests and can tell that 96k consistantly
sounds better, go with 96k.
Quite honestly I've found that having a super accurate master word
clock (Big Ben for example) will benifit the sound quality more that
boosting the sampling rate. Especially if you're just going to down
sample to 44.1k anyway.
-Reuben
Received on Mon Sep 12 08:15:05 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 08:15:05 EEST