|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 22, 2016 8:27:33 GMT -6
So, I'm working on a record where we tracked drums on a handful of tunes last year at 48k, and drums on a handful of tunes this year at 96k. Are there any concerns with sending songs recorded at different sample rates to the mastering guy for the same album? We're still pretty much at the drum tracking phase, so should I go back and re-record the drums originally tracked at 48k and record them to match what we're doing now at 96k? How big of a deal is it?
Also, and more subjectively, the drum tracks done last year were at my previous (and much smaller) room. I'm wondering if I should re-record the drums so that the drums are all in the same space? What's your preference on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 22, 2016 9:04:06 GMT -6
No problems. Just record great music.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 22, 2016 10:03:25 GMT -6
So, first--it's never a problem to deliver multiple mix formats to mastering. Whether they are old enough to remember or not--that's literally their job.  But, is it just the drums that were tracked last year? Or the whole/majority of the band arrangement? If just the drums and you're now going to record the "rest" of the tracks, I'd upsample the drums into a new 96khz project and proceed. They won't sound better (if that's not obvious) but everything cut over them will. If you've done the whole band/rhythm at 48, I'd probably leave it there for the overdubs-let mastering smooth it over. The guiding truth is--if they rock as is--you roll with'em. But, I try not to be too precious at the same time. I've seen people spend a day editing together some things that a simple new session would fix in an hour....and fix BETTER....and SOUND better... |
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Jul 23, 2016 2:29:27 GMT -6
I am somewhat in the same boat. Right now I'm vacillating between if i should get mastered some older tracks roughly recorded at 44k verse newer pristine and well recorded tracks that are at 96k but dont capture the energy.
It keeps me up at night.
You guys would notice immediately the difference in production from one song to the next. I know the days of the 'epic' continuous album are gone but it still needs flow. I'm hoping the mastering engineer can do this. The original sessions drowned when the studio flooded and had the hard drives under a foot of water but I have the mix downs I had done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 23, 2016 6:23:43 GMT -6
Makes no difference whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 23, 2016 14:42:08 GMT -6
Energy trumps precision every time. Old records often had unwanted distortion because the rundown was the best performance. They were great in spite of the distortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Jul 23, 2016 23:34:18 GMT -6
Energy trumps precision every time. Old records often had unwanted distortion because the rundown was the best performance. They were great in spite of the distortion. Oh i agree times 1000. Its hard though after the countless hours (months to years) of trying to capture it again and then flushing it all down the drain cause the original scratch tracks were better. And thanks for the invaluable reminder. |
|
