Latest PT, Carbon and M1 question

[jeffro]

Originally Posted by Dusan

The Only choice is Carbon 1-28 24-bit.
I was expecting a way to reduce a number of I/O to get to higher sampling rate but I see no way of doing it.

Please check out AVB Device Configuration in the Ref Guide, and post a screenshot of your windows if you can't solve this.

[Dusan]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Are you familiar with getting Carbon to show 192kHz options? Best description I know is here: https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/hom...-carbon-review see "Supports Up To 192KHz" titled section. Gives at least an idea what should be required to see 192 kHz option.

But why would you want to burn those very precious limited DSP resources running at 192kHz (presumably if purchasing a Carbon it was to leverage DSP processing and there is not a huge amount there).

Thank you very much for this.

I missed that article altogether.

The idea was to build a light live recording rig for chamber music and theatre - so DSPs wouldn't be required for processing on location.

We'll evaluate quality of the recording, but it looks like a very limited and not flexible enough option.

So RAVENNA might end up being a better tool for the job in the end and Carbon will end up in a songwriting music room.

[BScout]

Originally Posted by Dusan

The idea was to build a light live recording rig for chamber music and theatre - so DSPs wouldn't be required for processing on location.

We'll evaluate quality of the recording, but it looks like a very limited and not flexible enough option.

So RAVENNA might end up being a better tool for the job in the end and Carbon will end up in a songwriting music room.

Just a word of caution: if you are going to do chamber music/theatre at 192k (which, personally, I see as pointless), have you examined your whole signal chain?

Recently worked with a high-profile audiophile jazz label recording some big names. And of course, they wanted it at very high sample rates. And of course we were using some really high-end modern and very high-end (vintage) mics. But at no point, did the recordist ever check the frequency bandwidth of the mics in use. And, yup, none of them could even capture anything close to 48kHz so even 96khz recording was ambitious (and stupid.)

Of the very few mics that can record into the extreme ranges, I have a few (the Sennheiser mkh800, mkh800twin, Sanken CO-100k, the Schoeps XT ) and though they can record extreme ranges, how they do it affects the more audible range (anomalies between 5k-20k in order to get the boost over 20kHz.)

As for that jazz, the RCA 77DX, vintage Neumann M49 pairs, vintage ELA M251E pairs all roll-off to nothing by like 20kHz (and by nothing I mean digital black at -96dB.) They were never really meant to go much over 15kHz. I'd, every now and then, find a circuit buzz in the midst of the digital black high up. But mostly just a lot of waste of storage space.

Something to think about that can save a lot of headache.
(and after checking the mics, you need to check the mic pre capabilities; the whole chain needs to be checked if it is even capable before checking if it is a good idea)
Do a test recording. Examine a spectrogram in something like iZotope RX. See if there is anything even there over a frequency point.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Dusan

Thank you very much for this.

I missed that article altogether.

The idea was to build a light live recording rig for chamber music and theatre - so DSPs wouldn't be required for processing on location.

We'll evaluate quality of the recording, but it looks like a very limited and not flexible enough option.

So RAVENNA might end up being a better tool for the job in the end and Carbon will end up in a songwriting music room.

Not my area, but for live recording where you don't have any latency critical monitoring path/no need for DSP I'd be looking for something else nice and much more flexible for that use. Not sure how many mics you are using, what preamps etc. but if you are looking at Raveena or Dante my personal bias would be to first consider an interface using MADI optical, depending on how you do it this can be nice and easy to put an analog to MADI interface close to the mic/preamps or *potentially* if you've got distant stereo mics for the room maybe run a separate analog to MADI interface at those mics (as long as you can protect that MADI optical cable from accidents/prying fingers) . And yes Dante or Raveena would also be options. But I prefer MADI simplicity. I'm also not convinced a DAW is necessarily best for live. Digital recorders give interating options.

How much line input and mic inputs do you actually need?

[Dusan]

Thank you all for your constructive comments regarding location recording.

Yes the full recording chain always has to be evaluated, tested, re-evaluated and re-tested. The aim is to create the least intrusive workflow, to be able to capture the magic of the moment.

We have been recording at high sampling rates for a number of years already, and looking at Carbon in context of our work is just that. Seeing if it is one of the things we would be using long term.

Equipment comes and goes. The good stuff stays and the mediocre and inferior tools get left behind.

Once again, thank you all for quick response and advice.