[Goran Stojiljkovic]

:-) I have your book....thank you for sharing your knowledge..I learned lot
from you...
Thanks again
"Bobby Owsinski" wrote in message
news
In article
,
wrote:

Hello again, Has anyone tried. Tracking a song 96k and mixing to a 96k
master.
Then track the same song ( different take) at 44k and mix to 44k
master. No Cd masters involved.
Would I hear much of a difference?
Glenn.



I've done all the tests you can think of between 44.1, 48, 96 and 192k
recording and mixing. Being a big proponent of 96k since it first
became available, I changed my mind after doing the tests.

In our tests, there was a huge difference between 192 and 48k. 192
sounded so close to real that it was scary. Dialing it back to 96k you
could hear what seemed to be a little murkiness in the mid-range, which
became really apparent when the 192 was compared to 48k, but the
difference between 48 and 96k wasn't that great.

The tests were conducted by recording a variety of acoustic instruments
with a variety of popular convertors.

Since we did these tests 3 or 4 years ago, I've gone back to recording
everything at 48k since the difference in the sound and the hassle
involved isn't worth the extra effort, in my opinion. 192k sounds great
but is still impractical. 96k recording and mixing always seems to have
some unforeseen problem at some point in the process that ends up taking
time to solve that could've been better used for creating. 48k is a
seamless workflow with the least hassle that sounds very good with the
latest generation of convertors.

We did some testing at 44.1 but have settle on 48k as a standard since
so much of what we do ends up going to video at some point (48/16 is the
video standard).

Once again, this is only my opinion, but we did do a lot of testing to
come to that conclusion.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com

Author:
The Mixing Engineer's Handbook,
The Recording Engineer's Handbook,
The Mastering Engineer's Handbook
Cengage Course Technologies Publishing