Re: Mastering with JAMin and Ardour

--- Jan Depner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 08:46, R Parker wrote:
> 
> > Analog is "phater" is snake oil bullshit. Anyone
> that
> > wants to hinge their success at pleasing people on
> > those arguments can kiss my hairy digital ass. :)
> My,
> > my don't I have a big mouth this morning. I
> seldomly
> > if ever get drawn into debating that stuff. I
> should
> > be happy that I'm to busy to indulge.
> > 
> 
>     If you record at 96KHz or 192KHz you're so close
> to analog that it
> doesn't matter.  I certainly agree that analog is
> "phater" than 16 bit
> 44.1KHZ but, since the target media is 16 bit
> 44.1KHz, it really doesn't
> matter.  BTW, I did an interesting experiment the
> other day.  I recorded
> some old vinyl to digital.  I recorded the same
> songs in 24 bit 44.1KHz
> and 24 bit 96KHz.  Anyone who says they can't hear
> the difference
> between 44.1 and 96 should try this.  It's an eye
> opener.

I concur that there's an audible difference but the
hassles and compromises don't outweigh the gains. Do I
want to produce 12 or 24 tracks? I'll take 24 every
time.

I did my comparisons a week ago on an album that
someone sent me to mix and master. It was recorded at
96kHz. Apparently the real differences are heard in
effects processing which I didn't test. Effects
processing was their reason for recording at 96kHz.

ron

> Jan
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click