Question for recording artist/engineers

Slipknot1 - the band is recording in the studio. 48k is what Air Show Mastering uses with the HDCD format. Could the speed of the Duplicator has a negative effect on the sound quality?? I know on consumer recorders and PC drives it does have a negative effect.

Thanks again for the input to mic techniques.

you guys should direct this thread to tom wright at audio forest.com. he has 104 gold records and builds and designs speakers , cables,etc. he is an honery cuss but a great guy .

Check out Mapleshade records and the way Pierre Sprey records the artists on his label. These recordings are the most dynamic, exciting recordings I have ever heard, and I collect DCC Gold discs, MFSL Gold Discs, Sheffield Labs, AudioQuest, Reference Recordings, and, now, Super Audio and DVD-Audio. The Mapleshade recordings just kill them all. Whatever Pierre is doing is the RIGHT thing to do. I know it is live-to-two-track, but there is way more to his methods. He uses custom made gear and cables, as well as gear he modified. You just need to listen to hear that his way is better. I have purchased about half of his catalog. There are many titles that I would have not purchased, were it not for the fact that they were on Mapleshade. So, do what he is doing and you will sound real and dynamic!

Onhwy61 is spot on. As an engineer I used to work with once told me "You can't polish a turd". The most important element in the chain is the mic, its placement relative to instruments and the room. I've used ADAT and 2" analogue and both can sound either lousy or great depending on whether the mic'ing is done correctly or not. I have never heard any amount of "aural exciters", EQs or any such tool create a good sound from a mediocre source.
I've had best results from Neumann and AKG mics, and it seems that you get what you pay for ... expect $1000 up for a really good mic.

Some informative answers, except the nature of the question makes it seem to me that this material has already been recorded and will not be redone. In which case you are limited to either remastering, or if that seems to have been performed competently the first time, then remixing beforehand as well. The quality of the mixdown engineer and facilities is absolutely crucial, and even a surprising amount of 'turd-polishing' (if needed) can be achieved by a great pairing here. It'll cost, but not nearly as much as beginning over with rerecording. A worthwhile fact-finding mission might be to take the studio 2-track master (plus a mastered CD) to a prospective remix studio or two, and see what the band and you - and especially the resident engineer - think of what you've got to work with. I would do this particularly if you all remember the sound as you experienced it in the studio you've used so far as seeming somehow much better during the recording and mixing process than what you ultimately came out with when you listen to the finished product at home.