In Reply to: RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini posted by Tony Lauck on February 9, 2009 at 07:24:10:
"I am disappointed that Acousence records at 192k, then edits in the analog domain and revert back to digital. They need to invest in a digital workstation."
Hi,
I´ve just found this thread and it seems that there is some confusion about the workflow during the recording process at ACOUSENCE. Perhaps it is described not clear enough on our webpage. So please let me explain some things.
We record multitrack @96k with a DAW (and two HD recorders as backup), we mix the multitrack recording down to 2-track with an analog mixing desk and then we record the stereo mix @192kHz. Sure, we could do the downmix inside the DAW, but the analog mixdown is a very, very important thing to get a really convincing musical performance. It is a big misbelief if someone means that doing all in the digital domain is always the best. It is the cheapest, that´s right.
We need 24 or more highclass DA converters, a very expensive mixing desk and two highclass AD converters. But in my mind, a digital mix (especially inside the DAW) would be some of the worst things we could do with our recordings.
Thanks, Teresa for your interest in our recordings and your detailed description. If I read such things like "... it sounds more live", I see that it is good that we invest the additional expenses. This workflow is one brick to get this "live performance".
Best regards
Ralf Koschnicke
ACOUSENCE records
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - RalphK 12:29:02 02/09/09 (15)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - fmak 22:02:02 02/09/09 (11)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - RalphK 00:43:35 02/10/09 (10)
- Ralph I am very confused about several points you made - Teresa 03:50:22 02/10/09 (0)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - fmak 02:23:50 02/10/09 (8)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - RalphK 03:39:05 02/10/09 (7)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - RalphK 03:52:40 02/10/09 (6)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - Tony Lauck 09:26:57 02/10/09 (5)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - RalphK 00:52:07 02/11/09 (2)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - Tony Lauck 07:34:36 02/11/09 (1)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - RalphK 09:17:53 02/11/09 (0)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - Christine Tham 19:28:38 02/10/09 (1)
- RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini - Tony Lauck 20:46:11 02/10/09 (0)
- Vielen Dank, Ralf.... - alan m. kafton 13:46:07 02/09/09 (0)
- RE: I have always read that mixing is an art - navman 12:42:41 02/09/09 (1)
- RE: I have always read that mixing is an art - Squonk 13:03:53 02/09/09 (0)