Recording in 96khz resolution

[MALON]

This isn't exactly a reply. More of a question. I bought an mbox2 and told the salesman I wanted to record in 96khz resolution. He insisted that to record in 96khz res. I would have to spend at least 13,000.00 dollars or use "for example, his studio..", citing that Digidesign or no one else has 96khz for less than some enormous amount. What am I missing here? Is he a shady salesman or am I just just not grasping the correct interpretation of recording in 96khz? I think he simply wanted to make a quick fast sell and walk off giggling. Should I take the MBOX2 back and report him? Thanks

[JonnyGinese]

hmm... He could be a shady salesman or he could just not know what he should know. You can record in 96/24 with a Digi002 and 002Rack just fine I don't think the Mbox2 does 96/24... So... if you payed like $500 for the Mbox2 or how ever much it costs, you can take it back and get a 002rack for about 900-1100 depending on where you get it.

Aside from that.. Is there a reason you want to record at 96/24? I used to thinking i needed to so taht it sounded the best... but through alot of people talking to me and me realizing that it is VERY taxing on your CPU usage when using plugins.. I desided to go with 48/24.. Does 96/24 sound better? A little... but its getting mixed down to 44.1/16 anyways. Unless you are mixing music or stuff for a DVD. And as far as i know it... THe majority of the people on the DUC use 48/24... even Some HD people...

Hope this helped...

[TheNoize]

This isn't exactly a reply. More of a question. I bought an mbox2 and told the salesman I wanted to record in 96khz resolution. He insisted that to record in 96khz res. I would have to spend at least 13,000.00 dollars or use "for example, his studio..", citing that Digidesign or no one else has 96khz for less than some enormous amount. What am I missing here? Is he a shady salesman or am I just just not grasping the correct interpretation of recording in 96khz? I think he simply wanted to make a quick fast sell and walk off giggling. Should I take the MBOX2 back and report him? Thanks

He's right in 1 thing. To REALLY take advantage of 96khz res recording, you need at least (very least) $13.000 spent on other good gear, or use a good studio, for example his probably. Other than that, you'll be much better off with 48 or 44 because you'll have more disk space, processing power for effects and the difference...trust me you won't notice it.
For some reason even Linkin Park made their albums direct to disk, all tracks at 44.1. I know I may start getting famous for repeating this to everyone, but as Rip Rowan from the now defunct ProRec would say, it's all hype and people are very dumb - The 96 and 192khz hype had the same exact dumbness snowball effect of consumer/manufacturers as the dolby pro logic that a decade ago everyone thought was the future of music listening.

[dubhausdisco1]

also to add to that: check out bob katz's site (and book) at www.digido.com to find out why sampling rates (in the standard PCM format) never need to go higher than 88.2 (maybe even less...)

The most significant switch in the recording (home or otherwise) format was the ability to record @ 24 bits, but I will also add that if you are recording a live ensemble with only 2-6 tracks, 24/96 is nice!!!!

[TheNoize]

also to add to that: check out bob katz's site (and book) at www.digido.com to find out why sampling rates (in the standard PCM format) never need to go higher than 88.2 (maybe even less...)

The most significant switch in the recording (home or otherwise) format was the ability to record @ 24 bits, but I will also add that if you are recording a live ensemble with only 2-6 tracks, 24/96 is nice!!!!

Do you have evidence to support that there is actually an audible difference between 24/96 and 24/44, enough to tell them apart in a blind listening test?

[3JDamon]

There is definitely an audible difference between 24/96 and 24/48 - to my cat (he yowls at supersonics). Truly high resolution will never see the consumer market (except as an audiophool gimmick).

My live recording rig can do 24 tracks at 24/192, and I tried 88.2 and 96 a few times, all it did was double the HD and CPU requirements. I track at 44.1 or 48 unless a client demands it recorded higher, for which I charge a lot more since they're stupid enough to pay it, and if I don't someone else will. However, converters capable of higher sample rates are typically better at 44.1/48 than those that can't go any higher.

Note that the Mbox converter chips can do 24/96, they're just prevented from doing so by the hardware/software. They're the same as the 002's. The 001's converters are noticeably poorer.

[dubhausdisco1]

Do you have evidence to support that there is actually an audible difference between 24/96 and 24/44, enough to tell them apart in a blind listening test?

In case you were not aware, plugins that operate at up to 96k just plain sound better at the higher sample rate, and the little extra detail does sound nice...(ever heard of mastering engineers upsampling so the plugs cause less damage to the source?) A hiphop or metal project certainly wouldn't benefit from it,(or anything that has little or no low level detail) but that is my humble opinion.

[TheNoize]

There is definitely an audible difference between 24/96 and 24/48 - to my cat (he yowls at supersonics). Truly high resolution will never see the consumer market (except as an audiophool gimmick).

My live recording rig can do 24 tracks at 24/192, and I tried 88.2 and 96 a few times, all it did was double the HD and CPU requirements. I track at 44.1 or 48 unless a client demands it recorded higher, for which I charge a lot more since they're stupid enough to pay it, and if I don't someone else will. However, converters capable of higher sample rates are typically better at 44.1/48 than those that can't go any higher.

Note that the Mbox converter chips can do 24/96, they're just prevented from doing so by the hardware/software. They're the same as the 002's. The 001's converters are noticeably poorer.

True, I heard that also. 192 capable converters usually are better.

Wow are you sure? the converters in the Mbox (I believe you mean the mbox 2) are the same as the ones in the 002? Can someone at digidesign confirm this?

[Bender]

I have read so many articles and papers on this subject as well as testing what I could at home and at a pro studio. Everybody (almost) said they could here differences myself included. Not only did many fail to tell the difference at 96khz but most could not here consistently the difference between 44.1 and 48.

I could tell 44.1 from 48 and 88

This was by no means a big test just 6 engineers.

I track in 48/24

It pretty interesting what you can hear when you are trying to justify what you just bought.

[3JDamon]

In case you were not aware, plugins that operate at up to 96k just plain sound better at the higher sample rate, and the little extra detail does sound nice...(ever heard of mastering engineers upsampling so the plugs cause less damage to the source?)

I've also seen people pay me to use higher sample rates after I've given them my opinion that it doesn't help. I've done several studio projects and about a dozen live recordings at 24/96, and if there were any advantage to the higher sampling rate, I think I would have become "aware" of it.

A hiphop or metal project certainly wouldn't benefit from it,(or anything that has little or no low level detail) but that is my humble opinion.

Sorry to be argumentative, but didn't you just say plugs at 96k "just sound better"? Why wouldn't they help hip hip or metal? Last I checked they used plugs sometimes too. Low level detail is improved with higher dynamic range, not sample rates.

And the converter chips in the Mbox, 002, and 002R are the AKM 5383 (ADC) and 4383 (DAC), decent and very inexpensive: http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...83/ak5383.html

I don't see any reason for the Mbox 2 to have different chips, but you never know. Still the Mbox (1 and 2) does not benefit from as clean a power supply as the 002 and 002R.