On 4/20/07, Reuben Martin <reuben.m@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have spent the last year recording extensively at 96khz. There are only three real features of 96khz recording that I notice:
1) Stereo imaging seems slightly better
2) Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom, I haven't used a compressor in ages
3) Recording low volume (environmental) sounds sounds much better.
That said, recently I moved back to recording at 44.1.
1) What you hear is what you get - if you are primarily targeting CD - many an export from 96khz to 44.1 has gone south for me.
2) Much less disk space used
3) Lots more tracks feasible
4) Most plugins were designed and tested at 44.1 and 48khz and sound best at those rates
So, given that my mics aren't capable of exceeding the headroom afforded by 96khz, I don't see any good reasons to go to 192khz, and I plan to only rarely and in special situations, move up to 96khz in future recordings from 44.1 or 88.2.
So... when I decided to get up to 16 tracks on my RME-multiface I just added an 8 pre Digimax FS and connected it's ADAT output to it. The pres are very quiet and sound pretty darn good. Now I can do 12 tracks at 96khz or 16 at <=48 - but it won't do any higher than 96khz.
So the original thought of fireface + digimax FS might be an option so long as you stayed below 96khz.
Hope this helps.
I helping a friend out who wants to put together a linux / ardour setup.
However, the sound device he origionally suggested was RME's Fireface,
which is a no-go.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
I have spent the last year recording extensively at 96khz. There are only three real features of 96khz recording that I notice:
1) Stereo imaging seems slightly better
2) Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom, I haven't used a compressor in ages
3) Recording low volume (environmental) sounds sounds much better.
That said, recently I moved back to recording at 44.1.
1) What you hear is what you get - if you are primarily targeting CD - many an export from 96khz to 44.1 has gone south for me.
2) Much less disk space used
3) Lots more tracks feasible
4) Most plugins were designed and tested at 44.1 and 48khz and sound best at those rates
So, given that my mics aren't capable of exceeding the headroom afforded by 96khz, I don't see any good reasons to go to 192khz, and I plan to only rarely and in special situations, move up to 96khz in future recordings from 44.1 or 88.2.
The only others I could find that fit those factors were the Roland
FA-101 (only 6 inputs when at 192k) and Apogees stuff (a bit on the
pricy side). So I wanted to see if anybody knew of others that I
didn't think of.
So... when I decided to get up to 16 tracks on my RME-multiface I just added an 8 pre Digimax FS and connected it's ADAT output to it. The pres are very quiet and sound pretty darn good. Now I can do 12 tracks at 96khz or 16 at <=48 - but it won't do any higher than 96khz.
So the original thought of fireface + digimax FS might be an option so long as you stayed below 96khz.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
-Reuben
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
--
Mike Taht
PostCards From the Bleeding Edge
http://the-edge.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
