Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dave Rickard]

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!  

[Ned Ward]

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.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

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   ) are good enough to warrant 96Khz sample rates.  If that is truly the reality, you probably need a better board than the 01v96.