96 KHz Sample Rate ... How ???

[Zergei]

Hi There ...

I'd like to record my projects using 96Khz Sample Rate,
but my system just doesn't seem to cope with that .

I'd like to use AmpliTube Fender SE for guitar tracks (AUX-Busses)
SSD LE for drums and a few other VST / RTAS FX + instruments .

Now ...
I really think my PC (Windows 7 / tweaked for DAW-use)
should be able to handle all the stuff I feed it with .

But is 96KHz sample rate all but a dream.

My Setup :

Intel P4 Dual Core (2 x 3GHz)
ASUS P5Q
4 GB (Fast DDR)

Separate System and Audio HDDs
(UDMA-6)
Dual Monitor Graphics Controller (NVIDIA GForce 9600 Integrated)

Now ...

please share your knowledge .

Regards,
toni S

[TOM@METRO]

While there are clues here about your system a Sandra report would say so much more. Most of us will be waiting for that.

http://duc.digidesign.com/showthread.php?t=193635

[Shatzer]

What interface are you using? Does it support 96?

[3JDamon]

That's a lot of resources devoted to an inaudible octave. I'd rather improve the capturing and processing of frequency ranges people can actually hear.

"AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making many bits at lower speeds. The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and scientific reality.

The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Whether motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true."

- Dan Lavry - http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

Note that you're still better off with converters that are *capable* of higher sample rates, but only because they have more resources to convert to proper sample rates better. Nyquist was right.

[TOM@METRO]

Every record we have sold except one has been recorded at 44.1 or 48 / 24bit, but don't tell anyone.

[Blackers]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

Every record we have sold except one has been recorded at 44.1 or 48 / 24bit, but don't tell anyone.

Interesting point.How many projects out there are recorded at 96 khz?
Another thing:the big studios are still using tape or just hard disk and if so, has is it been recorded at 96 khz?

[justus1900]

I allways record at 24bit/96Khz. I have the CPU Power, I have the Hard Drive Space so I see no reason to not record at 24bit/96Khz. Now you do have to know what you are doing and have track/channel management or you could start to have problems. If you are using a Firewire External drive after so many tracks the system really works to pull the wav files into PT.

[Shatzer]

I went to a top of the line studio running all the 192 I/Os but for some reason they only recorded at 48. WTF.

[TOM@METRO]

Originally Posted by Shatzer

I went to a top of the line studio running all the 192 I/Os but for some reason they only recorded at 48. WTF.

I work at some of largest studios in L.A.. 44.1. and 48 are the most common formats I see, not just on my sessions. The classical guys seem to go for the higher sample rates the most. I still haven’t found a preference in blind tests with clients or pedestrians. High quality converters make a much bigger difference. I use tape also and when it's transferred to PT it's at usually at 44.1/24 bit. We don't need the silent octave to sell records. Most sales these days are MP3. When the multitrak-consolidated files go to the label, we bump up to 88.1 or 96 for archives.