HDN why 96k
 

Since I recently purchased a 24 channel D-Command, I'm considering making the migration from TDM land, to ProTools HD11 with the HD native card.

I've owned ProTools HD 11 since it came out, and I did run it through its paces about a year or so ago with an HD native card but didn't spend a ton of time on it. I was mainly testing it to see how it would handle latency, on a fairly heavy/dense mix, and my impressions back then were that it could be challenging when needing to do some overdubs late in the mix stage. I remember dealing with frustrating latency at that point. I was actually really surprised at that when I did it, as I have a pretty powerful computer I've got a 5.1 12 core with 32 gig of RAM.

Full disclosure when I did my testing, I did it on sessions that were significantly larger than my average session, just so I could get an idea what it would feel like if I needed to do larger sessions.

When I tested it, I did do it at 44. It seems like I remember most people prefer working at 96 with HD native.

What are the benefits of recording at 96 versus 44 with HD native, if any?

Today I purchased an HD native card from Alto Music, for a whopping $629. I figured I'd spend a month with it, and if they gave me what I needed, I would sell my TDM cards and make the permanent move off of TDM and into more recent versions of ProTools.

Re: HDN why 96k
 

If you do live recording, I'd keep the HD3 going in some form. That is a great system. Also it gives you a doorway to your past. With that, you can also open any session you've done in the past 15 years, or more. Even if they are SDII files!

I would move to HD native for mixing. If you need to do overdubs in the middle of a mix, just offline bounce a mix of where you are "now". Then import that mix into a new session and do your overdubs. The import those edited and manicured tracks back into the main session. The whole process of creating the new session takes about 2 minutes. Latency won't be a problem. You should be able to set the hardware buffer to 64 samples.

You will figure out ways to work. But like I said, I'd keep the accel system for live band tracks and backward compatibility. Wish I still had mine...

Steve

Re: HDN why 96k
 

I don't think HD Native has anything to do with wanting to work at 96k as much as it is a preference to just work at a higher sample rate. I've been working at 96k for 10 years now and maybe I just continue to do so out of habit but at the time it was the highest sample rate my interface went, it was stable and I was able to finish projects. That was with Cubase back in the day. Once I migrated over to HD Native I just continued to work at 96k. That's what I knew, it's stable and I'm able to work and finish projects.
As for latency, I monitor through an external mixer so latency is never an issue and that is with my buffer parked at 1028.
I do some projects at 44.1k but that's usually how they come to me. If I'm tracking it, the project is at 96k.
But truthfully I think it comes down to being a preference and what works for you. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it! :-)

Re: HDN why 96k
 

Hey Barry,

Big fan of yours around here. I love your irreverent take on things and your "realistic" approach to a lot of Avid's shenanigans with upgrades and subscriptions etc, as well as your keen eye for secondhand prices of Avid gear (and reporting back on these from the outer reaches of eBay :-)). I also enthusiastically followed your thread about upgrading the MP 4.1's to modern processors, as I'm a 2009 4.1 and TDM HD3 owner myself with one eye on the future, and seeing from your postings around here that you've stuck with a TDM system too, I'm very interested in how you might get on with the TDM -> HDN migration.

It's very much on my radar at the moment too. I've been doing a lot of experimenting, but the one major stumbling block I'm struggling with is discussed in this thread below from Post #3 onwards (sorry for all those who've been watching me bang on about losing my "Mute Frees Assigned Voice" workflow in quite a few threads around here recently). Are you a "voice stealing method" guy at all??

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=316448

I was very excitied about the arrival of new hardware when it was first announced, followed by incredibly disappointed to find out Avid had killed off manual voice assignment. Any thoughts to offer from your point of view on this??

Cheers.

Steve Bush

Re: HDN why 96k
 

Just my 2 cents:D If you NEED 96K, then run with it. If you do pop/rock/country that ends up on iTunes, 48K is plenty good(how many hits were done on black-faced ADAT's:eek:). At the end of the day, I'll take a great performance of a great song where it sounds fine, over a perfect(technically) recording of crap:rolleyes: I have tons of product on iTunes and youtube done at 48K and I seriously doubt the sample rate is ever a deciding factor:o.

Yes, some will claim that 96K "sounds" better(can anyone tell with a download from iTunes?), and they may be right. Some will say that certain plugins sound better, and they may be right(refer to the ADAT comment). I will usually bounce to 96K for mixes that will go to be mastered(a lot of my work gets mastered in-house).

A while back, I had a mix project come in that was tracked at 96K, but it hammered my rig(at the time, an early i7 quad). After listening to how poorly recorded it was, I down-sampled to 48K, worked my "magic" and had a very happy client.....;)

Re: HDN why 96k
 

Yep, 96k used to hammer my computer as well. (Initially a 6core i7, but now I run a Xeon 8core.)

I have old sessions on there, but all my new stuff is 44.1.

When you start using VI's at 96 man oh man.....watch out.

Like Dave said there are way to many other things to be concerned about that have an actual audible impact on your song

Re: HDN why 96k
 

I worked at 88.2 and 96 for a couple of years and it was flawless with HD Native. I went back to working at 44.1KHz a year ago and I don't plan on going higher anytime soon. One of the reasons is the sound of Crane Song Phoenix which has a certain character at 44.1KHz that I like. It sounds very different at double sample rates. I also enjoy smaller data footprint. Easier to move sessions around.

Re: HDN why 96k
 

I remember reading in the past, that latency is much lower at 96K. Which from what I understood was why they recorded at 96. Is that not accurate?

Re: HDN why 96k
 

Yeah it is 1/2 of 44.1k iirc.....

It's just so much more taxing on your system, as well as session size.

I have also learned from Dave and the guys that running a session at 32bit float can influence and tax a systems resources as well.

Re: HDN why 96k
 

Wow, I'm already regretting even thinking about going from an HD3 to HDN, even considering I have a 12 Core MP. No way I am ever willing to ever think about latency again, or its work arounds......No way.......