Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-13-2005, 07:55 PM
Sambuca Sambuca is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 17
Default 96 versus 88.2 khz

I've read different opinions on this but still do not have a clear answer. As I will eventually be bouncing down to CD (44.1), which sampling rate will yield the best results.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-13-2005, 08:12 PM
Kurtstudio Kurtstudio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Franklin Tn
Posts: 424
Default Re: 96 versus 88.2 khz

Digi has spent countless hours doing great conversions down from 96 to 44.1 if you are concerned 88.2 would be the prefect conversion rate, but not very practical for pop music, though I have done session at that rate for clients. Just make sure you dont' bounce to disk for the conversion step, let mastering do it or use the Step of, selcect your audio region "Shift , option K "and do the conversion there. Better use of 32 bit processors and quality.
__________________
Later, Kurt

Kurtstudio@mac.com
Intel duel Quad core
PT 8.0cs3
HD4
D Command / D control
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-14-2005, 11:36 AM
Sambuca Sambuca is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 17
Default Re: 96 versus 88.2 khz

It's a Classical/crossover project so I need to capture as much detail as possible. I've read 96 is the way to go as long as you are using top notch sample rate convertors to get to 44.1 and that the 88.2 to 44.1 'cutting-in-half' thing mathematically really isn't valid.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:52 PM
Studio Crash Studio Crash is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Philadelphia USA
Posts: 30
Default Re: 96 versus 88.2 khz

I would like to know the reason behind the 88.2 "cutting in half" is not valid statement. It seems simple enough to me. If you mathematically remove every second sample, wouldn't that be exactly the same as if it were originally recorded at 44.1? What's the difference?

Maybe some info could be lost by the phase shift any mix eq might do after the original recording moving transients to in-between individual sample points? Even so, the actual resolution difference between 88 and 96 seems like it really wouldn't make a noticeable difference after converting to 44.1. Am I wrong?
__________________
Mac Pro 2010 12-core 32GB / High Sierra / Avid HDX / 192digital / 96io (2x) / Pro Tools Ultimate 2019.5 / D-Command 40 fader / www.studiocrash.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:59 PM
Kurtstudio Kurtstudio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Franklin Tn
Posts: 424
Default Re: 96 versus 88.2 khz

Since it is a classical pop record, a directions I have had lots of experence in, I'd keep it 96 k all the way to mastering. They will have the state of the art converters thus your end product will be at it's maximun performance and quality. Have Bob Ludwig master it, he's the best. Good luck!
__________________
Later, Kurt

Kurtstudio@mac.com
Intel duel Quad core
PT 8.0cs3
HD4
D Command / D control
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-14-2005, 09:59 PM
Kurtstudio Kurtstudio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Franklin Tn
Posts: 424
Default Re: 96 versus 88.2 khz

Since it is a classical pop record, a directions I have had lots of experence in, I'd keep it 96 k all the way to mastering. They will have the state of the art converters thus your end product will be at it's maximun performance and quality. Have Bob Ludwig master it, he's the best. Good luck!
__________________
Later, Kurt

Kurtstudio@mac.com
Intel duel Quad core
PT 8.0cs3
HD4
D Command / D control
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-14-2005, 10:31 PM
rnt_u_listnng rnt_u_listnng is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 192
Default Re: 96 versus 88.2 khz

Quote:
I would like to know the reason behind the 88.2 "cutting in half" is not valid statement. It seems simple enough to me. If you mathematically remove every second sample, wouldn't that be exactly the same as if it were originally recorded at 44.1? What's the difference?

Hey Crash, this seems to be the day for rehashing old technical issues. On another thread, we covered recording levels...again. The answer to your question isn't quite as obvious as it seems. Converters upsample the data to the least common multiple before downsampling, so the answer is not simply "take every other sample". Do a search on the DUC, this one has been discussed quite thoroughly. The quality of the converter is more important than the particular sample rate.

Hope this helps.

John
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
7.3 versus 7.1 on G4? Moz 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 4 02-02-2008 09:45 AM
96 i/o versus the 192 i/o? Loudnoize Ent. Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 11 11-14-2006 03:05 PM
Mac G4 versus G5 versus Windows XP progress88 General Discussion 22 09-08-2003 09:45 AM
M-149 versus? DougP General Discussion 15 10-03-2000 06:38 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com