What are you mixing to?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Handywired <handywired@aol.com> wrote:
>I have mixed to DAT, CD and 1/4" analog. Obviously the two digital formats
>are at relatively low bit and sample rates compared to what is available now.
>What formats are being used to "store" mixes that are done at high bit and
>sample rates? DVD?

I am seeing lots of 1/2" analogue now. Although I am still partial to 1/4"
myself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I am seeing lots of 1/2" analogue now. Although I am still partial to 1/4"
> myself.

Isn't 1/2 inch less susceptible to minor playback flaws in the tape or
any kind of smudge or later "obstacle" to a pure playback? By one half?
And wouldn't the same be true recording at 30 vs: 15 ips?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Handywired wrote:
> I have mixed to DAT, CD and 1/4" analog. Obviously the two digital formats
> are at relatively low bit and sample rates compared to what is available now.
> What formats are being used to "store" mixes that are done at high bit and
> sample rates? DVD?
>
> -jeff

Almost never mix to DAT anymore. Thankful for that.
Budget projects go to ProTools 24bit / 44.1.
We try to encourage mixing to tape whenever possible.
For a long time we printed to a Studer B67 but recently
went to a JH110C with 1/2" and 1/4" headstacks. Looking
forward to more 1/2" mixdowns in the future.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ

jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net

http://www.retromedia.net

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <32v3c6F3qadc5U1@individual.net> crabcakes@emagic.net writes:

> Isn't 1/2 inch less susceptible to minor playback flaws in the tape or
> any kind of smudge or later "obstacle" to a pure playback? By one half?

I don't know about the "one half" part because this isn't something
that you can measure. But a larger area of contact will reduce the
effect of a given sized obstructin to head contact (regardless of the
form in which it comes). The primary reason for using wider tracks,
though, is for magnetic reasons. I'll leave the details to those who
would like to discuss field strength and shape.

> And wouldn't the same be true recording at 30 vs: 15 ips?

A "bump" goes by faster at the higher speeds, but it's still a "bump."
The advantage of a higher speed is better high frequency response. The
disadvantage of a higher speed is worse low frequency response. It's a
decision that, if you have the option, should be made based on the
program content.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Handywired wrote:
> I have mixed to DAT, CD and 1/4" analog. Obviously the two digital
formats
> are at relatively low bit and sample rates compared to what is
available now.


> What formats are being used to "store" mixes that are done at high
bit and
> sample rates? DVD?
>
> -jeff

by "store" do you mean maintain the final stereo audio files in the
original digital format?

Isn't analogue tape is a mastering process?
wouldn't that mean you are storing an "analogue" mastered mix?
not the "mixes done at high bit and sample rates."

Plextor makes the "standard" in hardware for burning "master" quality
optical media. (DVD/CD)
< http://www.plextor.com/english/index.html >

dale