ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => SR Forum Archives => LAB Lounge FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: (Brian) Frost on October 06, 2010, 12:15:24 PM

Title: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: (Brian) Frost 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Matt Vivlamore 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Silas Pradetto 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Duncan McLennan 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Andy Peters 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
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Matt Vivlamore 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
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Andy Peters 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
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Michael J Brown 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Mark Gensman 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Douglas R. Allen 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
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Dave Rickard 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
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: Ned Ward 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.
Title: Re: 44.1, 48k or 96k on 01v96
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish 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.