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 5671 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."

Dave Rickard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2903
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2010, 10:50:23 pm »

Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 18:03

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



Stop, you're making my sides hurt!   Laughing
Logged
Dave
Yorkville dealer

"The wrong piece of gear, at the right price, is still the wrong piece of gear."

"If you don't have good stuff at each end of the signal chain, (mics and speakers) what you use in between is just turd polish."--Dave Dermont

Ned Ward

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2010, 10:12:25 am »

recording at home in pro tools and with my zoom H2 - 24/96 sounds much better on things like acoustic guitar, vocals, drums, etc. You can mix and process and then bounce down to 16/44.1 and I've found the results sound better than starting with 16/44.1 to my ears.

In live sound, given all of the other unknowns, I think 24/44.1 would be fine and you won't miss the "air" (for lack of a better word) of 96K. Losing half your FX and half your ADAT channels isn't probably worth it.
Logged

TJ (Tom) Cornish

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2010, 11:58:12 am »

24 bits makes a difference, but I agree with the others on the sample rate - I envy your situation if the usual audio challenges of room acoustics and stage volume (not to mention band talent  Rolling Eyes ) are good enough to warrant 96Khz sample rates.  If that is truly the reality, you probably need a better board than the 01v96.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 15 queries.