-
I'm not trying to have the most neckbeard argument ever but having just looked it up, pro tools only started supporting 96khz (and 192) in 2002... Admittedly that was 17 years ago but there was plenty of music digitally recorded with it before then.
Apparently Herp Alberts album rise was recorded at 96k in 1979 though, so I guess you're right about how long it's been around!My point with tape is that often the way things were recorded (the compression has a low-pass effect) means there's not a lot going on to require massive oversampling (although iirc there can be separate issues with the bias tone).
I get that converters aren't created equal and oversampling will reduce audible artifacts so if you've got the gear, great go for 96/24 but in general if something was recorded (or remastered) for CD, you're getting the 'correct' version at 44.1/16 and 192 is like playing a DVD on a 4k TV with no upscaling trickery.
You are reading a single comment by @Dramatic_Hammer and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Dramatic_Hammer
Airhead
Studios have been at 96/24 for a long time. 64bit internal busses are pretty standard for DAWs. Early digital recording used stuff like converted betamax machines (Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions). Donald Fagan - The Nightfly is a good example of early digital, they had tried to record Gaucho digitally but stuck with tape. The Nightfly was 16bit the system had just been updated from 8 bit.
I do understand the way tape works but the compression that any analog recording system can create due to the way it overloads has nothing to do with the bit rate you are using to digitally represent the files.
Tape has a theoretical dynamic range which is far lower than the theoretical dynamic range of a 96/24 recording but again the reason to record at 96/24 is not to increase the dynamic range but to reduce the problems caused by aliasing harmonics appearing in the audible spectrum.
I understand you have a different viewpoint. From my side of things 96/24 is a baseline, it's actually easier to maintain that as a standard throughout my system. I would say that there are many things to worry about before DSD or MQA becomes a thing to worry about but I've been and done worried about the other stuff. Last weekend I was recording a band, 16 tracks of 96/24 to an iPad from my PA mixer, it's not a massive overhead these days.
As far as MP3 etc is concerned there are times when I don't notice the difference and times when I do, the main thing that annoys me is overly compressed music, even if it's 96/24 it will annoy me if there's not enough dynamic range. So in that way we can agree, there are bigger fish to fry.