Received a project today in 16bit 96KHz

[Silver Sonya]

The world is a strange, strange place.

- c

[DSD_Mastering]

It could have been much worse... you could have gotten an mp3!!


Regards,

[Adam Dempsey]

... or a .txt file.

[jdg]

Originally Posted by Boomshanka

... or a .txt file.

[Mr Phil]

Originally Posted by Boomshanka

... or a .txt file.

[dualflip]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

The world is a strange, strange place.

- c

OUCH!, been there....

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

The world is a strange, strange place.

- c

Trivia to follow...

Anybody remember the Pioneer 96 kHz DAT? That was 16 bit 96kHz. Strange indeed.

[Adam Dempsey]

Yes, like the Sony PCM R500 & R700 machines it probably passed 24 bits E-E, but can't put 24 bits on tape without it running double speed, as per the Tascam. So did it feature SBM or equivalent?

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Trivia to follow...

Anybody remember the Pioneer 96 kHz DAT? That was 16 bit 96kHz. Strange indeed.

Yep! I demoed one for a couple weeks about 10 years ago.

Didn't really see the point.

The 24-bit Tascam DA-45HR was a big leap, at least until the MasterLink blew it out of the water. We've still got two of each.

Oh Yeah, I also recently recieved 16-bit 96k mixes, didn't have the heart to tell the client, the project moved forward anyway.

Cheers - JT

[lucey]

16 bit ... for that vintage low end

[Riccardo]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Trivia to follow...

Anybody remember the Pioneer 96 kHz DAT? That was 16 bit 96kHz. Strange indeed.

Ah! We still have one of those around!

[steffen]

what if they send you this?



8 bit on punched paper tape is the §hit. haha

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

It could have been much worse... you could have gotten an mp3!!


Regards,

What's wrong with recieving a 16bit 96K project?. Odd though it may be, it shouldn't sound any worse than 16bit 44K, which a lot of artists submit to be mastered.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Arksun

What's wrong with recieving a 16bit 96K project?. Odd though it may be, it shouldn't sound any worse than 16bit 44K, which a lot of artists submit to be mastered.

Nothing wrong, just the choice of resource/bandwidth use is a bit strange. 24bit 48kHz would be smaller/faster and (arguably) be more of an improvement over 16/48.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Arksun

What's wrong with recieving a 16bit 96K project?. Odd though it may be, it shouldn't sound any worse than 16bit 44K, which a lot of artists submit to be mastered.

It's meant as a joke ... if the mix is great a DAT tape is perfect. Daniel Lanois and DAT, works for me.

[steffen]

yepp, nothing wrong like robin said...great records have been cut from 16bit.

16/96 just reads strange. if it would read cool then
robin´s studio would have been named "16-96 mastering"

[Toad]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Trivia to follow...

Anybody remember the Pioneer 96 kHz DAT? That was 16 bit 96kHz. Strange indeed.

I remember reading reviews on it!
The person doing the review was frustrated at not being able to hear the difference of the "96K"

[shmasterer]

I think the Mitsubishi X-86 was also 1696, maybe only 88.2 though.
I liked the sound of 24 bit dat better that PT bounces of the same era.

sh

[James Meeker]

Something unusual like that was probably a mistake made when setting up the session. "WHOOPS! Shoulda been at 24 bit... but the drums are already tracked, edited and Beat Detective'd! Crap!"

David St. Hubbins would approve.

[Paul Gold]

Originally Posted by steffen

what if they send you this?

I would have to go to Florida, recount the votes and then add dither.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Isn't the most important thing how is SOUNDS and not what bit rate or sample rate is recorded at?

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Isn't the most important thing how is SOUNDS and not what bit rate or sample rate is recorded at?

LOL

Wrong website for that kind of talk. Blasphemy!

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Isn't the most important thing how is SOUNDS and not what bit rate or sample rate is recorded at?

Sure it is, but even if it sounds great, how much better would it have sounded if delivered in 24 bit? There's no way of telling what's lost after it's been lost.
That, imo, is the killer argument to always supply in hi res. Plus, these days, there aren't really any major arguments against it, I think.

[dualflip]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

Isn't the most important thing how is SOUNDS and not what bit rate or sample rate is recorded at?

This comment smells to me like the begining of a completely new thread ehe

[JCM]

Originally Posted by steffen

what if they send you this?



8 bit on punched paper tape is the §hit. haha

Dude , it's tape , it's gotta sound good!

I wonder if they dithered or truncated it?!

[mdjice]

One day i got a producer bringing me a reason session to mix....I explain I don't have reason on my computer I can install a demo but it will take a while and he will have to pay for studio time...he says no don't worry I'll transfer it into a Protools session..the guy comes back the next day...hands me the data CD...he renamed the extension to a .ptf...