Converting 48k 24 to 44.1k 16 these days with HD10.3.10

[Alécio Costa]

Hi,

For a long time I have been mastering 48k 24 files. I create bounces at 44.1k 24 bits and then, open a new session and convert them to 44.1k 16 with a dither plug-in and checking ceilings, when necessary.

In these days of 10.3.10 HD is it ok to go directly from 48k 24 to 44.1k 16 ( ok, the dither plugin would not be present) ?

Also, Will the export function provide me similar results:
a) suppose I creat master files at 48k 24 and need to go 44k 16 directly?
b) suppoose I create files at 44.1k 24 and need to go also to 44k 16?

[Alécio Costa]

BTW...I am aware of sample manager.

[albee1952]

As long as you use a dither as the final process, I think its okay to go directly from 24/48 to 16/44.1 in a single step. The sample rate conversion has gotten very good over the years and I no longer worry about it at all

[Alécio Costa]

Thanks!

I find it is strange when people complain about SRC within PT these days.
I use an external master clock coming from a Hedd 192, with PT HD connected via BNC.

[Alécio Costa]

anyone else?

[dtmprod]

Originally Posted by Alécio Costa

anyone else?

Hi;
Maybe it's just me, but I've never liked what Protools does when downsampling. Seems like it dulls the top end slightly. For a long time, I used Barbabatch to convert. But now that it looks like its no longer supported, have been using Izotope RX5 to do conversions. Just an opinion.....

[JFreak]

PT used to not have the "tweakhead" as default, because of performance reasons. I don't remember when they changed it (PT9?) but with the current versions "tweakhead" is the default and it shouldn't dull the top end.

But if you have made a blind A/B test between different SRC and find out that PT is inferior, I believe you. I haven't.