Hi all,
I have a few questions on 96 khz recordings. Are any of you doing any 96 khz recordings ?

If so, do find a major difference in the sound quality? Describe the differences you hear.

I know the DA7 does not support 96khz. If you are making 96khz recording, which functions do you still use the DA7 for?

Thanks.

Armrest???

I've done some things in SADiE and Sonic Solutions at 96k and, IMHO, the extra HD space required isn't worth the difference. The BIGGEST difference to my ears is from 16-bit to 24-bit. After that, I'd have to go with 192k for the next major jump in quality.

Eric,

That beggs the question, what do you hear at 192?

I hear the 'air' that only shows up on 1/2" 2-Track Studer A-80 @ 30ips...

That's where this is all heading, you know? A friend of mine has the new PTHD stuff and won't do 192k on it until he gets massive amounts of storage added. It really is absurd how much it takes!!!

I regularly record to 2 trk on the Masterlink at 24/96. Don't hear a significant difference over 24/48, however the clients love it!

Oh, I see,

I R&D'd the first Otri 1/2", I still wanta hear a 1" 2tr like I have heard George Martin had (has?).

So your sayn' all I need to do it is all new digi gear with up to 5 gigs per song, 50 gigs per project and at least 900 gigs for backup and storage

I guess it could be worse...

I'm still trying to figure out why at 192 Khz it only has two points that it plots the curve with, ampiltude and frequancy, that seems bad and wrong for a tempered scale.

Have you seen the 2" modification for the Ampex ATR-102? Oh my gosh!!!

The only difference I hear is $Ca-Ching$.
All the manufactuers know if they push new formats and make users believe thats where its going then they make money and we the users pay for taking the technology there, Then they come up with something else and its a vicious circle. What difference does it make mixing down at anything higher than 16 bit 44.1 unless your burning DVD or SACD?
Can you honestly say you hear the difference between 44100 samples and 96000?
24 bit 48k is just fine for me for a long time,
I'm only burning cds and that is suffient.
Go GO Golden Ears!
Give in now then theres no end!
Rich

In terms of 96K benefit, most of it occurs at A to D when you move the Nyquist further away from audio and employ a gentler filter. Therefore, you can convert said recording to 48K (or from 88.2 to 44.1), mix in and master in 44.1 or 48 with your DA7 (using sample converters like Z systems or DCS to feed the ins) and still derive a slight, but audible benefit. I agree with Restes that once you're in digital, mastering at 96K from a 48K source is a waste of time and resources, however.