192khz session not even an option.

[Jakay]

I've tried searching for this, can't find an answer, so here's the problem...

I bought the crossgrade to Pt10 on the assumption that I could use 92khz files seamlessly in a 192khz session, before I mix it down to 44.1/16.

But I can't even start a 192khz session. It's just not even an option (like the title says). 92khz is where the drop down list stops, and I've poked around in system preferences (osx 10.6.8), can't find anything.

Any insight on this anyone?

The best I can come up with is that my actual Macbook Pro (an original 2.0 ghz Core nothing Duo) maybe just isn't powerful enough for ProTools to even support the option?

That would be a shame since I bought the upgrade before I upgrade my computer so I could work on setting up all my sessions before I get into things.

I don't know, this is my last ditch attempt to rectify the problem. 32 float works fine... I don't see why this doesn't. UNLESS 192 IS A GREAT BIG PHONEY.

[psycho_monkey]

Firstly - it's 96k, not 92k

Secondly - what interface are you using? if that doesn't support 192k, you won't have the option to start a session at 192k.

Thirdly - why 192k? I can think of a couple of very specific circumstances when you'd want to use it, but none of your favourite records were done at 192k. I'd guess it's used more by home studio guys "wanting to do what the pros do" than any pro. In 10yrs of studio sessions, I've seen 1 192k session. That was when my producer upsampled a 96k session at mix time to see if there was an improvement. Never again!

As for your computer, nothing in it will stop you running 192k sessions. Although you'll probably find that as soon as you run 1-2 high processor demand plugins, it grinds to a halt. you're not going to be able to run a 48track mix with 2-3 verbs etc on that machine, especially not if you're running VCC or similar!

[chrisdee]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

none of your favourite records were done at 192k.

Thats true, but over at hdtracks more and more songs are being made available remastered at both 96 and 192 kHz.
So atleast they now can be heard at these samplerates. I think its a matter of opinion weither it sounds better than 44 kHz or not.

You be the judge of that :

https://www.hdtracks.com/

[Jakay]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Firstly - it's 96k, not 92k

lol, after the number of times I've seen people do that, there I go doing it myself. 24, 48, 96, 192, and some day maybe we'll all be debating 384 (although that seems unlikely).

As for my interface, it's an Mbox 3rd gen, and if that's it right there, well, I suppose that's it right there, even though it's not plugged in right now when I start up PT to create a new session.

As for why, some of it is keeping up with Joneses, I suppose. I figured (as I have to figure out everything as I go, right or wrong) that a 192 environment should give a little extra headroom and I've seen 192 samples popping up, so I wanted to be able to plunk them right in without downsampling if need be, and if multiple layers of 96 sounds better than multiple layers of 48, as it does, why wouldn't 192 be that much better?

That's it right there. I've barely been able to otherwise tell the difference between 48 and 96 as it is, and I didn't get an MBox Pro based on that assumption. Having not had the luxury, I couldn't tell you if 192 sounds any different at all, though I've even read that it can sound worse. No idea myself. Don't actually care all that much either, 96 sounds great.

Thanks for the response. It's a bit annoying that PT doesn't even let you select that as an option when the whole PT10 campaign is based around it and the 32 bit float, but whatever, not worth worrying about, clearly, and it's always good to hear a studio guy mirror that sentiment.

[necjamc]

Originally Posted by Jakay

lol, after the number of times I've seen people do that, there I go doing it myself. 24, 48, 96, 192, and some day maybe we'll all be debating 384 (although that seems unlikely).

As for my interface, it's an Mbox 3rd gen, and if that's it right there, well, I suppose that's it right there, even though it's not plugged in right now when I start up PT to create a new session.

As for why, some of it is keeping up with Joneses, I suppose. I figured (as I have to figure out everything as I go, right or wrong) that a 192 environment should give a little extra headroom and I've seen 192 samples popping up, so I wanted to be able to plunk them right in without downsampling if need be, and if multiple layers of 96 sounds better than multiple layers of 48, as it does, why wouldn't 192 be that much better?

That's it right there. I've barely been able to otherwise tell the difference between 48 and 96 as it is, and I didn't get an MBox Pro based on that assumption. Having not had the luxury, I couldn't tell you if 192 sounds any different at all, though I've even read that it can sound worse. No idea myself. Don't actually care all that much either, 96 sounds great.

Thanks for the response. It's a bit annoying that PT doesn't even let you select that as an option when the whole PT10 campaign is based around it and the 32 bit float, but whatever, not worth worrying about, clearly, and it's always good to hear a studio guy mirror that sentiment.

Headroom equates to the bit depth of the session. Not the sample rate. Personally I do some of my own projects at 96k but for everyone else it's 48k. I swear at 96 I hear more clarity, but that's not a provable thing. I've run at 192k just because my profire 2626 can do it. But I get more errors than fidelity so there's not even a chance for me to actually debate wether its worth it.

[KMcK]

Originally Posted by Jakay

As for my interface, it's an Mbox 3rd gen, and if that's it right there, well, I suppose that's it right there, even though it's not plugged in right now when I start up PT to create a new session.

Sounds like since your Mbox isn't plugged in, you're just using the internal sound card for your audio I/O? If so, that's why you can't use higher sample rates, the internal sound card doesn't support them.

[JFreak]

It's up to the capabilities of HARDWARE INTERFACE which sample rates can be used. Protools software supports all of them. If the gear is not up to the task, you can't blame software.

As for sampling rates... it's mostly hype.

Theoretically we do not need more than little over 40kHz sampling, depending on each individual's ability to hear high frequencies. A sample only needs 2Hz sampling rate to represent 100.0% original signal of 1Hz and the only reason for REALLY NEEDING 192kHz sampling rate would be that your ears are capable of hearing 96kHz sounds. Theoretically, that is.

In the real world no hardware is perfect so we need to take imperfections into account. The real reason why 96kHz session sounds better than 48kHz session is that the imperfections of converters are in the frequency area that we cannot hear. And the frequencies that we can hear are clear from imperfections, which is most notable in the higher frequencies.

BUT if you had a perfect converter you would not be able to hear difference between 48k or 96k or 192k or however much you want to up the game. There is no audible difference if all the trouble is in the +40kHz area which we don't hear.

...and that is why best converters cost so much. They can deliver 96k performance with 48k sessions.

[Jakay]

Well, that's quality feedback everyone. Thanks.

Hey, here's a fun one... Wouldn't a 192k recording stand up to elastic audio and general time and tempo warping better? Kind of like high speed film for variable slow motion shots.

[JFreak]

No.

Sample is a sample and waveform is a waveform. Samples are needed to store digital representation of a waveform, but once samples are read we're not dealing with samples but reproducing waveforms which are processed. It doesn't matter whether I've stored that waveform using 96000 or a million samples because in the end all I have is the waveform. Number of samples only defines the upper limit of how high frequencies can be stored (half the sampling rate, so 48kHz sampling allows for up to 22kHz signals)

[Jakay]

That made that pretty clear. Hence why 44.1 was chosen for CDs, as a practical upper bounds for our ears.

Cheers.