ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96  (Read 5675 times)

(Brian) Frost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« on: October 06, 2010, 12:15:24 pm »

I generally use my 01v96 at 44.1 because I also record and or mix at 44.1 to a mobile multitrack rig for my clients.  Do you notice a difference in sound, stability, or responsiveness using higher sampling rates?  Its not that hard to change clock for different uses.  Just wondering if there is a downside or actual upside to 96k on it.
Logged
Frost

Owner, Narnia Productions

www.NarniaProductions.com

Chicago IL


Good is good but not as good as better

Matt Vivlamore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2118
    • http://www.meerkatsound.com
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2010, 02:57:29 pm »

correct me if I am wrong, but you lose half your channel count going to 96k.

btw, I never tried it.
Logged
Find us on the web at: meerkatsound.com

I'm using: EV QRx212 over JBL SRX718s(2) with Crown IT's and MRX512m & MRX525 on monitors with XTi's; all controlled by Yamaha LS9-32.  I have a bunch of other stuff too.

Silas Pradetto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2010, 02:58:42 pm »

Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 14:57

correct me if I am wrong, but you loose half your channel count going to 96k.

btw, I never tried it.


I think that's only on ADAT where it can run 96k for 4 channels...but I could be wrong.
Logged

Duncan McLennan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2375
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2010, 03:37:50 pm »

You get full channel count, but you lose half your ADAT, and you lose half the FX processors.
Logged
dcm
Waterloo & London, Ontario

Andy Peters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9104
    • http://www.latke.net/
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2010, 04:30:42 pm »

Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 11:57

correct me if I am wrong, but you loose half your channel count going to 96k.


You're wrong.

It's lose, not loose.

-a
Logged
"This isn't some upside down inverted Socratic method where you throw out your best guess answers and I correct your work." -- JR


"On the Internet, nobody can hear you mix a band."

Matt Vivlamore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2118
    • http://www.meerkatsound.com
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2010, 06:36:57 pm »

Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 16:30

Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 11:57

correct me if I am wrong, but you loose half your channel count going to 96k.


You're wrong.

It's lose, not loose.

-a



Opps.. fixed
Logged
Find us on the web at: meerkatsound.com

I'm using: EV QRx212 over JBL SRX718s(2) with Crown IT's and MRX512m & MRX525 on monitors with XTi's; all controlled by Yamaha LS9-32.  I have a bunch of other stuff too.

Andy Peters

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9104
    • http://www.latke.net/
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2010, 08:03:00 pm »

Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 15:36

Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 16:30

Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 11:57

correct me if I am wrong, but you loose half your channel count going to 96k.


You're wrong.

It's lose, not loose.

-a



Opps.. fixed



Wrong again.

It's oops, not opps.

-a
Logged
"This isn't some upside down inverted Socratic method where you throw out your best guess answers and I correct your work." -- JR


"On the Internet, nobody can hear you mix a band."

Michael J Brown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2010, 06:48:42 pm »

Take 5 minutes next gig and try both.

If the feature differences don't matter to you pick the one that sounds better and be done with it.

5 minutes and your all set....

Who gives a shit what we think?  Laughing

P.S. Report back on your opinion.
Logged

Mark Gensman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
    • http://www.groundzerosound.com
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2010, 08:16:48 pm »

On most of the recording forums the general view seems to be that recording at 44.1 24 bit is the way to go. If you are multitracking, higher resolution means more hard drive space and you still have to convert to 44.1 to burn to a CD.

And I have yet to hear definite proof that anyone can hear the difference between 44.1 and higher resolutions.

I used my digital mixer at 48K for years thinking I was getting "better" sound than at 44.1, but after conversion the files sounded different to me. I now do everything at 44.1.
Logged
Mark G.

Douglas R. Allen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 776
    • http://-
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2010, 08:25:39 pm »

Mark Gensman wrote on Thu, 07 October 2010 20:16

On most of the recording forums the general view seems to be that recording at 44.1 24 bit is the way to go. If you are multitracking, higher resolution means more hard drive space and you still have to convert to 44.1 to burn to a CD.

And I have yet to hear definite proof that anyone can hear the difference between 44.1 and higher resolutions.

I used my digital mixer at 48K for years thinking I was getting "better" sound than at 44.1, but after conversion the files sounded different to me. I now do everything at 44.1.


I agree. I was running at 48k then picked up a Fostex D1624 and D824 recorders. To save hard drive disc space I went to 44.1 / 24 bit. If there was a difference in the sound of the bands I do it was not noticeable. My pa could not reveal it. I've never tried 44.1/16 bit.

Douglas R. Allen
Logged
Allen Audio

"The worst thing is."
"You can't teach common sense."
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 15 queries.