Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Per SÃ¸vik" data-source="post: 130141" data-attributes="member: 1285">Re: New presonus mixerApart from the obvious, that people like to record at 96 and 192 KHz, one processing advantage of 96 KHz (or indeed 192 KHz) is that cumulative errors will be smaller, same thing with 24 bits.By making absolutely sure that any errors (read noise and distortion), even after lots of processing will still be in the insignificant bits that are ultimately discarded when the master is converted to 44.1 kHz 16 bit, one can be confident that the end result is as good as it gets. In the old days (not really that long ago) one would sometimes utilize direct to master recording of symphony orchestras to ensure the quality of the recording. One would aim to eq only once, if at all, rather spend time to find the right microphone and placement, etc. etc., all to keep the path short and undisturbed. Today there might be an exaggerated belief that as long as it is digital, it&#039;s error free and quality is not disturbed. It might be true in terms of harmonic distortion and noise, and some eq plug-ins are even very kind to phase, but it is still true that lots of cumulative eq processing smears phase, and lots of dynamic processing distorts dynamics beyond what is intended. Some of the processing methods that were available twenty years ago to avoid some issues have even gone out of fashion and practically disappeared because of the (erroneous?) belief that they are no longer needed.Another reason for keeping all processing at 96 KHz is that you then only have to make (and optimize) the plug-ins for that sample-rate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Per SÃ¸vik, post: 130141, member: 1285"] Re: New presonus mixer Apart from the obvious, that people like to record at 96 and 192 KHz, one processing advantage of 96 KHz (or indeed 192 KHz) is that cumulative errors will be smaller, same thing with 24 bits. By making absolutely sure that any errors (read noise and distortion), even after lots of processing will still be in the insignificant bits that are ultimately discarded when the master is converted to 44.1 kHz 16 bit, one can be confident that the end result is as good as it gets. In the old days (not really that long ago) one would sometimes utilize direct to master recording of symphony orchestras to ensure the quality of the recording. One would aim to eq only once, if at all, rather spend time to find the right microphone and placement, etc. etc., all to keep the path short and undisturbed. Today there might be an exaggerated belief that as long as it is digital, it's error free and quality is not disturbed. It might be true in terms of harmonic distortion and noise, and some eq plug-ins are even very kind to phase, but it is still true that lots of cumulative eq processing smears phase, and lots of dynamic processing distorts dynamics beyond what is intended. Some of the processing methods that were available twenty years ago to avoid some issues have even gone out of fashion and practically disappeared because of the (erroneous?) belief that they are no longer needed. Another reason for keeping all processing at 96 KHz is that you then only have to make (and optimize) the plug-ins for that sample-rate. [/QUOTE]

Verification