Group: Super Admins
Joined: Dec. 1999
|Posted: Oct. 17 2003, 15:02
It's Mike and not Warner this time - as far as I know, he still uses older 48kHz Pro Tools hardware, as opposed to the newer 192kHz capable HD system. This is the hardware on which he makes his initial recordings, so he probably felt that converting to 96kHz after that wasn't worth it (and in any case, I believe it's not the only part of his studio limited to 48kHz operation). Mike feels that there's not much point to extended sampling rates, as you'd have to be a bat to hear the difference (not quite true, it increases the accuracy of reproduction of audible high frequencies as well as just extending the range of reproducible frequencies, but let's not dwell on that...), so he may not be rushing to upgrade...
I don't really think that a 96kHz release would be a vast improvement over 48kHz - I'd be more inclined to describe it as a subtle improvement, but I agree that the aim should be for the optimum reproduction of the original master.
I think that more of a point for concern is the lack of subtlety in the mix and indeed that, despite all the compression, the recording doesn't manage to use the full 24 bits of available resolution.
But still, we get the demos, and we get a disc that isn't corrupted and won't make your player blow up...it almost feels like progress is being made