Is anyone running at 192K

[univox1]

Hello. is anyone running Pro Tools at 192k with allot of tracks and plugins? Does it work well? How powerful of a computer is needed? Will a 8-12 core Mac Book pro work?

[Michael Carnes]

I used to run at 192K all the time. Only reason I still don't is because I sold off my location kit and now can only to 96K with my little Zoom.

Not quite sure what you mean by a lot of tracks and a lot of plugins. Doing location classical, I rarely needed more than 8 tracks on disk (meaning solid-state). But because I was mixing in Atmos, the channel count was high and my handful of plugs was working on all those channels.

As far as MacBook Pro goes, I did fairly well on an Intel i9, but the fans on the thing sounded like a hovercraft. Apple Silicon does much better and will do a lot more work before it starts to fall down. A good way to guesstimate what your laptop can do is to set up a 48K session that's so demanding that it will barely run. Hopefully it's a busier session than you ever do. Divide that track count by 4 and that will get you in the ballpark of what your track/plugin count could be.

A lot of people will tell you that 192K is ridiculous and will say that 44.1 is all you'll ever need. The difference is subtle, but noticeable. The high-frequency extension isn't really the point. The point is that phase will remain more accurate at all frequencies and sound that passes through IIRs (a very common attribute of most filters, delays and reverbs) will be much less 'grindy' sounding. Any pitch-shifting you do will be more robust and the overall sound is more transparent.

[univox1]

I run Pro Tools at 88.2 all of the time with allot of plug ins and track with no problem with my 2012 4 core Mac Book. A session will not even open if I set it at 192k. I am wondering if a new Mac Book would run my big sessions at 192k.

Originally Posted by Michael Carnes

I used to run at 192K all the time. Only reason I still don't is because I sold off my location kit and now can only to 96K with my little Zoom.

Not quite sure what you mean by a lot of tracks and a lot of plugins. Doing location classical, I rarely needed more than 8 tracks on disk (meaning solid-state). But because I was mixing in Atmos, the channel count was high and my handful of plugs was working on all those channels.

As far as MacBook Pro goes, I did fairly well on an Intel i9, but the fans on the thing sounded like a hovercraft. Apple Silicon does much better and will do a lot more work before it starts to fall down. A good way to guesstimate what your laptop can do is to set up a 48K session that's so demanding that it will barely run. Hopefully it's a busier session than you ever do. Divide that track count by 4 and that will get you in the ballpark of what your track/plugin count could be.

A lot of people will tell you that 192K is ridiculous and will say that 44.1 is all you'll ever need. The difference is subtle, but noticeable. The high-frequency extension isn't really the point. The point is that phase will remain more accurate at all frequencies and sound that passes through IIRs (a very common attribute of most filters, delays and reverbs) will be much less 'grindy' sounding. Any pitch-shifting you do will be more robust and the overall sound is more transparent.

[Michael Carnes]

Originally Posted by univox1

I run Pro Tools at 88.2 all of the time with allot of plug ins and track with no problem with my 2012 4 core Mac Book. A session will not even open if I set it at 192k. I am wondering if a new Mac Book would run my big sessions at 192k.

There will be a huge difference if you're running a current MacBook. But before you even think about it, you'll need to take an inventory of the plugins you use and whether they've been updated to Apple Silicon. And of course you'll need to update ProTools. Whatever version you're using isn't going to run on a new system. And whatever I/O device you're using will need to support 192 (that may be why your experiments on your current system won't work at that sample rate).. No way around breaking into the piggy bank.

If you're running existing sessions at 88.2, there's going to be minimal improvement--if any--by taking those sessions to a higher sample rate. The frequency range will be the same range as whatever the original sample rate captured. The benefit will come when you have original content at 192.

[philgrab]

Originally Posted by univox1

Hello. is anyone running Pro Tools at 192k with allot of tracks and plugins? Does it work well? How powerful of a computer is needed? Will a 8-12 core Mac Book pro work?

Working on an album now at 192k. Don't know about MAC. I am on Windows 11 with an I9 Intel processor and 32GB of RAM. Lynx Aurora(n) 16 converters.

I am up to about 12 tracks with VSTs of Superior Drummer 2 and Omnisphere along with numerous UA plugins and Fabfilter Pro3 on every channel.

I do get memory errors periodically, but it doesn't crash PT. I just hit OK and keep working. A little glitch with midi editing which has crashed the project a few times. Backup sessions is your friend.

That's all I got.

[univox1]

How many core processor are you using? Do you get over 12 tracks ever?

Originally Posted by philgrab

Working on an album now at 192k. Don't know about MAC. I am on Windows 11 with an I9 Intel processor and 32GB of RAM. Lynx Aurora(n) 16 converters.

I am up to about 12 tracks with VSTs of Superior Drummer 2 and Omnisphere along with numerous UA plugins and Fabfilter Pro3 on every channel.

I do get memory errors periodically, but it doesn't crash PT. I just hit OK and keep working. A little glitch with midi editing which has crashed the project a few times. Backup sessions is your friend.

That's all I got.

[univox1]

All of this is obvious. I am wondering if the newer computers with 8 - 12 cores will handle a session at 192k?

Originally Posted by Michael Carnes

There will be a huge difference if you're running a current MacBook. But before you even think about it, you'll need to take an inventory of the plugins you use and whether they've been updated to Apple Silicon. And of course you'll need to update ProTools. Whatever version you're using isn't going to run on a new system. And whatever I/O device you're using will need to support 192 (that may be why your experiments on your current system won't work at that sample rate).. No way around breaking into the piggy bank.

If you're running existing sessions at 88.2, there's going to be minimal improvement--if any--by taking those sessions to a higher sample rate. The frequency range will be the same range as whatever the original sample rate captured. The benefit will come when you have original content at 192.

[Michael Carnes]

Originally Posted by univox1

All of this is obvious. I am wondering if the newer computers with 8 - 12 cores will handle a session at 192k?

Sure. All depends on the size of the session. That's why I suggested you try to max out your current system at 48K and do the math to see if it will cover your needs.

[philgrab]

Originally Posted by univox1

How many core processor are you using? Do you get over 12 tracks ever?

PT shows 4 core processors at 192
I checked again and I have 18 total tracks, 2 midi, 11 audio, 2 VSTs - Omnisphere & Superior Drummer 3

Oceanway from UA also loaded (it's a resource pig)

That's not the limit, just where the project is at this point. I would happy if I can squeeze in a few more tracks. Also had a mastering EQ & UA SSL on the master buss along with a tape emulation.

[univox1]

I will try that.

Originally Posted by Michael Carnes

Sure. All depends on the size of the session. That's

why I suggested you try to max out your current system at 48K and do the math to see if it will cover your needs.