Hot answers tagged

3

If it is 48/24 they ask for then there's really no point in recording in 96KHz and then convert it. There is a great gain if the project is being mixed in 96 and then resampled down to 48KHz, the program will have more to work with to reach a more undistorted mix, but doing it the other way around can only lead to degrading of the soundfile, remaining at ...


1

Yea, having done some field stuff, especially if it's meant to sync to picture later, better off just grabbing it in 48. That's for the location stuff of course. Later on, if you are laying in sound design or foley, you can record that at whatever you want, esepcially if you plan on slowing and pitching stuff. For the location sound, I would rather not risk ...


1

Conversion is mostly automatic and very easy and fast to do. So don't make it an issue unless you end up doing conversions from uneven sample rates (e.g. 96k -> 44.1k is not an even division), which causes some, but often minimally audible digital errors. Better record at 96kHz, if possible, because it gives a more flexible recording for later use.


1

I hear all of you on this one, especially the OP. I can also tell a difference... ...Here's the deal: I grew up nearly deaf (and inching towards deafness). Sound didn't matter until a surgery gave me back full function in one ear. The other is bad, but with special equipment, can work up to 89% efficient, which, I'm told is average human quality for my ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible