Gonna upgrade my Mbox 3 to pro. Do I neeeeeed to record at 192k?

[rockguitarist1255]

I have my mbox 3 right now, and I record at 48k 24bit. I've heard many people saying 44.1, 48, pretty much up until 192 are standard. When mastering I will go down to 16bit 44.1k.

But as far as recording, is there really any point in recording 192k with the mbox pro since it can handle it, or is there really no difference if I stay at 48k?

[Craig F]

need to, no
96, maybe

[albee1952]

Consider the end product. If its going to end up as a downloaded mp3, I think 48K is plenty. Now if you plan on doing a bluegrass or symphonic project to release on DVD, then 96k could make more sense:o I'm not sure how well the average native rig would even handle 192K:cool:

[rockguitarist1255]

Consider the end product. If its going to end up as a downloaded mp3, I think 48K is plenty. Now if you plan on doing a bluegrass or symphonic project to release on DVD, then 96k could make more sense:o I'm not sure how well the average native rig would even handle 192K:cool:

I'm just gonna distribute my music through cd's and itunes, amazon mp3 etc.

so 48k is perfectly fine for that kind of stuff then right?

[albee1952]

I'm just gonna distribute my music through cd's and itunes, amazon mp3 etc.

so 48k is perfectly fine for that kind of stuff then right?
Absolutely. How many hit records were done on black faced ADAT machines(16 bit/44.1K:eek:). A decent recording of a great song and performance will trump a perfect recording of crap, any day:D 99% of my stuff is done at 48K/24 bit:o

[rockguitarist1255]

Absolutely. How many hit records were done on black faced ADAT machines(16 bit/44.1K:eek:). A decent recording of a great song and performance will trump a perfect recording of crap, any day:D 99% of my stuff is done at 48K/24 bit:o

Alright awesome. And I get what you're saying about having a good recording. Haha I'm gonna make sure all my recordings are the best I can do. Like you said, a decent recording will trump a recording of crap. It reminds me of what I saw some recording engineer say "You can roll a crappy recording in all the glitter and plug ins you want, but in the end, it's just gonna be a glitter turd."

Anyway, thanks for your help as always!

[EGS]

+1. To my ear, sample rates above 48K are not crucial. Better mics/mic placement/better instruments ARE crucial. My 2 cents.

[Benoni]

You will probably be fine with 44.1 and 48k. If you are using certain plugins, then maybe consider 88.2 or 96k. For me, I like to use 96k when I use guitar simulators, they just sound better to me; especially in the high end detail.

[Shan]

With my line of work, 48k is sufficient enough for me. Plug-in aliasing of "some" plug-ins get reduced at higher sample rates such as 96k, which can be a good thing. The only benefit I see with 192k is if one is doing extreme(and I mean extreme) time compression expansion in sound design. Other than that it's overkill and bygone marketing hype from years gone by.

Shane

[rockguitarist1255]

You will probably be fine with 44.1 and 48k. If you are using certain plugins, then maybe consider 88.2 or 96k. For me, I like to use 96k when I use guitar simulators, they just sound better to me; especially in the high end detail.

Okay I have a question about that then. I currently use my Mbox 3, to record my Fractal Audio Axe fx 2 via the SPDIF output of the Axe fx, to the SPDIF input of the Mbox. I have to set the clock on Pro Tools to external, because the Axe fx is fixed at 48K, so of course the sample rate has to match.

Saying that of course, would I even want to consider moving up to 96K for my sessions, but instead record via the XLR output of the Axe fx, into the XLR input of my Mbox? Or would that not even matter since I'm not even using an amp simulator plug in, I'm using a totally different hardware model that just transfer the audio to the Mbox. I know albee, and a lot of other people say most of their work is 48K, and I wanna stick with that. It just gives me peace of mind when more advanced recorders tell me that what I'm doing is good, in this case 48K, cuz then to my ears it makes me love my work more.

[Darryl Ramm]

Okay I have a question about that then. I currently use my Mbox 3, to record my Fractal Audio Axe fx 2 via the SPDIF output of the Axe fx, to the SPDIF input of the Mbox. I have to set the clock on Pro Tools to external, because the Axe fx is fixed at 48K, so of course the sample rate has to match.

Saying that of course, would I even want to consider moving up to 96K for my sessions, but instead record via the XLR output of the Axe fx, into the XLR input of my Mbox? Or would that not even matter since I'm not even using an amp simulator plug in, I'm using a totally different hardware model that just transfer the audio to the Mbox. I know albee, and a lot of other people say most of their work is 48K, and I wanna stick with that. It just gives me peace of mind when more advanced recorders tell me that what I'm doing is good, in this case 48K, cuz then to my ears it makes me love my work more.

In some ways you don't have a choice, the Axe FX (great box) works at 48k, doing the D to A back to D again by using the analog main outputs is not a nice way to go. It might be nice for some folks if the Axe FX supported a higher interface sample rate, I think the developers have argued it won't help. Sample rate conversion on (e.g. HD) interfaces that support is a nice option here to allow working with higher sample rate sessions.

Darryl

[serio]

The mbox pro can't record at 192 in pro tools can it? I thought it only had that sample rate available on outside daws.

[nst7]

Yes, it can since PT9. When it first shipped, it shipped with PT8, and PT8 software did not allow recording past 96k. But that changed with the release of PT9, and continues on.

[rockguitarist1255]

In some ways you don't have a choice, the Axe FX (great box) works at 48k, doing the D to A back to D again by using the analog main outputs is not a nice way to go. It might be nice for some folks if the Axe FX supported a higher interface sample rate, I think the developers have argued it won't help. Sample rate conversion on (e.g. HD) interfaces that support is a nice option here to allow working with higher sample rate sessions.

Darryl

Oh alright. A lot of people told me that 48K is just fine, so I'll probably just do that and use the SPDIF inputs/outputs. Although in the future, if I did want to work at a higher sample rate for whatever reason, but still use the Axe fx, if I understand, an HD interface can accept the incoming signal from the axe fx that is at 48k, but then convert into say 96K into Pro Tools right?

[Darryl Ramm]

Yes. And some other non-HD interfaces (e.g. the UAD Apollo) also offer sample rate conversion.

Darryl

[rockguitarist1255]

Yes. And some other non-HD interfaces (e.g. the UAD Apollo) also offer sample rate conversion.

Darryl

Hmm. Just took a look at that on Sweetwater. I just might get that instead of the Mbox pro so in the future I do have the choice of upsampling the axe fx signal if I want. And it has 4 mic inputs which is really why I wanted a new interface. Is the process of setting up a 96K session to record, but have the signal of the 48K axe fx a challenge to do with that? Or is it like a simple thing where I just gotta click a few things or change some settings?

[Darryl Ramm]

Hmm. Just took a look at that on Sweetwater. I just might get that instead of the Mbox pro so in the future I do have the choice of upsampling the axe fx signal if I want. And it has 4 mic inputs which is really why I wanted a new interface. Is the process of setting up a 96K session to record, but have the signal of the 48K axe fx a challenge to do with that? Or is it like a simple thing where I just gotta click a few things or change some settings?

I'm certainly not saying you need sample rate conversion, just pointing out a lower-cost interface that supports that. But if you are buying an interface now and considering between the UAD Apollo and the Mbox Pro. Let me think about that for a nanosecond... PICK THE APOLLO! it Is a stunning good interface, way more than an Mbox Pro, even if you don't want to ever use the UAD plugins (and if you do, spend the time to understand how all this works). In addition to the 4 mic inputs the Apollo has 4 extra line inputs you can add analog premps to, and has ADAT/SMUX input for digital preamps and they will support (in future) chaining two Apollos together.

Darryl

[rockguitarist1255]

I'm certainly not saying you need sample rate conversion, just pointing out a lower-cost interface that supports that. But if you are buying an interface now and considering between the UAD Apollo and the Mbox Pro. Let me think about that for a nanosecond... PICK THE APOLLO! it Is a stunning good interface, way more than an Mbox Pro, even if you don't want to ever use the UAD plugins (and if you do, spend the time to understand how all this works). In addition to the 4 mic inputs the Apollo has 4 extra line inputs you can add analog premps to, and has ADAT/SMUX input for digital preamps and they will support (in future) chaining two Apollos together.


Darryl

Yes that I totally agree with. The Apollo costs more than the Mbox pro, but in the future it would be such a better investment. I just have one last question if you don't mind. I noticed that the Apollo, and other UAD interfaces said they do "A/D" conversion. I'm guessing that as long as any other interfaces I look at say A/D conversion on them, and have an SPDIF out/input that I could do the resampling right? I just wanna make sure cuz this is the first I've heard of resampling different frequencies through and interface but having a session with the same frequency.

[Darryl Ramm]

Yes that I totally agree with. The Apollo costs more than the Mbox pro, but in the future it would be such a better investment. I just have one last question if you don't mind. I noticed that the Apollo, and other UAD interfaces said they do "A/D" conversion. I'm guessing that as long as any other interfaces I look at say A/D conversion on them, and have an SPDIF out/input that I could do the resampling right? I just wanna make sure cuz this is the first I've heard of resampling different frequencies through and interface but having a session with the same frequency.

Most typical interfaces provide some A/D (analog to digital) conversion, that's largely the most important feature that makes the box an interface (e.g. lets you convert a line level or mic signal (after a mic preamp) to digital so Pro Tools can record it). Some digital only interfaces convert from say S/PDIF or AES/EBU to firewire/USB etc. and many do both that and A/D. But having an A/D has nothing to do with sample rate conversion on the digital inputs or outputs. Sample rate conversion, is a specific feature of the digital IO (S/PDIF or AES/EBU etc.) part of the interface.

Darryl

[rockguitarist1255]

Most typical interfaces provide some A/D (analog to digital) conversion, that's largely the most important feature that makes the box an interface (e.g. lets you convert a line level or mic signal (after a mic preamp) to digital so Pro Tools can record it). Some digital only interfaces convert from say S/PDIF or AES/EBU to firewire/USB etc. and many do both that and A/D. But having an A/D has nothing to do with sample rate conversion on the digital inputs or outputs. Sample rate conversion, is a specific feature of the digital IO (S/PDIF or AES/EBU etc.) part of the interface.

Darryl

Oh okay. So if I'm looking for an interface will support me using the session at 96K, but having an incoming signal from the axe fx that is 48K, is there a specific term o description I should look for on that interface if it supports that? Or would I have to go to the actuall makers website and ask or see if it can do what I want to with the axe fx and the session in the future.

[Benoni]

Oh okay. So if I'm looking for an interface will support me using the session at 96K, but having an incoming signal from the axe fx that is 48K, is there a specific term o description I should look for on that interface if it supports that? Or would I have to go to the actuall makers website and ask or see if it can do what I want to with the axe fx and the session in the future.

If you are going to use the SPDIF of the AXE, I would just stay at 48k. I was talking more about guitar plugins and specifically the Eleven Rack when using high gain settings sounding better (to me) at 96k. There is also a bit less latency (http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=5722.10) at 96k which goes into the "feel" experience.


Here is an article about sample rate:
http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

[Darryl Ramm]

Oh okay. So if I'm looking for an interface will support me using the session at 96K, but having an incoming signal from the axe fx that is 48K, is there a specific term o description I should look for on that interface if it supports that? Or would I have to go to the actuall makers website and ask or see if it can do what I want to with the axe fx and the session in the future.

Yes, the term I've been using "sample rate conversion". Look for that in the specs or documentation. But if you are looking around this class of interface just save your time lookin, get the Apollo, for many reasons.

Darryl

[P,B,S]

From my experience 192k is not really beneficial unless your entire studio is up to the task. I have had studio,s where I could not hear the difference at all, but with real professional quality equipment 192k does offer a sonic improvement.
Mostly in the upper range but has a feeling of depth and fullness with a more natural low end realism.
I never could heard the difference with TDM and 192 converters but I can with HDX.
Most people will say that at higher sample rates the major improvements are in the sound quality of the plug ins.
I agree with that because it removes the converters preamps mics and poor techniques or basically everything in the signal chain from being a factor.
I do agree that there is a sonic benefit with 192 and 96k over 44,48 but the rest of your gear has to be good enough to even hear the difference.
96k is my usual setting but I would use 192k if I had the voice count, because it does sound better. :-)

[YYR123]

I do agree that there is a sonic benefit with 192 and 96k over 44,48 .....
because it does sound better. :-)

Interesting because all of the talk has always been for years (all the TDM crowd) "You don't need to run anything but 44.1k" and "do you know how many CD's have been recorded at 44.1k?"

Nice to hear someone finally come clean -

[rockguitarist1255]

I think instead of the Mbox 3 pro I will just save up for a UAD Apollo Quad. A lot of people say it's awesome, and it has the sample rate conversion like one forum user said, so I still could record my Axe fx at 48K (that's what it's fixed to), and still make a session 44.1, 48K, 96K etc since the Apollo will be able to do that. Although now that I think about it, all this talk about 44.1 vs 48 vs 96 is really making me wonder on which one I should record at. I mean I will be mixing down to 44.1 16 bit for CD/Mp3 but still it's confusing.

[YYR123]

. Although now that I think about it, all this talk about 44.1 vs 48 vs 96 is really making me wonder on which one I should record at. I mean I will be mixing down to 44.1 16 bit for CD/Mp3 but still it's confusing.

Totally Confusing and you really don't want to do that in this thread - UA Apollo looks like a really nice box - tracking with plugs is a huge plus - surely you won't be disappointed

Save the other conversation about sampling rate ?? for Google if you have a few days to read up on it