On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:04 PM, garygenn wrote: >IF I have the capablility to record at 96 Khz , Should I be? I have >been reording at 44.1 with my tascam 1884 for ever and just never >changeed it. Now I have hooked up a fireface 400 >(which I love the sound that comes out) and sent the WC out from >the FF 400 to the 1884 in(cause I beleive the FF 's clock to be >better than the tascams) and I noticed the ff is at 96 so I >changed the 1884's to 96 too. IS there any reason not to keep it at >this seting? One cool thing I did notice in another app I wont >mention is that when I changed the sample rate going >in to it it really knocked my latency down. Do you really have to make your mind up once and for all? I´m personally more inclined towards recording at 96 when recording a handful of sensitive instruments, a session where you´d typically record the acoustic guitar, vocals or violin in stereo for example, when it´s vital to get that full body out each and every nuance, with the music emanating from silence. How about an autoload/ template for each? My default is 44.1 at 24 bits, that way I can use twice as many instruments and plugins. Recording through my digi interface I don´t have the latency issue though. Anybody using any recording workarounds for the group to take part of? All the best /Erik 2x1.8, 4Gb RAM, OSX 10.4.7 PPC,HD Accel 3, PT 7.1cs10, L7.2.3 _______________________________ Erik Häusler Future Love Productions AB erikhausler@mac.com

On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:04 PM, garygenn wrote: IF I have the capablility to record at 96 Khz , Should I be? Record a small bell, a ride cymbal something like that, in both 44.1 and 88.2. Do a blindtest on yourself and then decide. Personally I have stayed with 44.1 but some say they can feel/tell a difference. Obviously the actual frequencies we're dealing with here are way, way past normal human hearing but judge for yourself and decide whether you find reason to spend the bus speed on it.

>At 1:02 PM +0100 3/5/07, HKC wrote: >Record a small bell, a ride cymbal something like that, in both 44.1 >and 88.2. Do a blindtest on yourself and then decide. Personally I >have stayed with 44.1 but some say they can feel/tell a difference. >Obviously the actual frequencies we're dealing with here are way, >way past normal human hearing but judge for yourself and decide >whether you find reason to spend the bus speed on it. to me recording an analog lead/pad was enough to hear how much warmer (analog) it sounds at 96. Also (big thanks to Bob DeMaa), EQs, comps and some other plugs work *much* cleaner and it's so much easier to mix as you hear every nuance of every track. As I said, I definitely will switch as soon as I get 96 capable hardware. Best, Andy -- Andy Hardwake Composer/Producer <http://www.myspace.com/andyhardwake>;