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 > 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-30-2003, 01:51 AM
daede daede is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California
Posts: 90
Default So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

I've had pretty good results with 96, but as my songs become more complex, and with the addition of Rewire, I find myself wanting more CPU power anyway.

I have a couple decent pres, a Focusrite TwinTrak and a Presonus Bluetube... my sound in is nice... so how much am I going to miss that clarity when I drop to 48, and how much processor power am I really going to gain?

Also, is there an easy way to convert my 96 sessions?

Thanks!

daede
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-30-2003, 05:30 AM
Lalaman Lalaman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,198
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

As long as it is about tracks you want to keep on the long run better stay with 96k. It sounds smoother without question, gives more air and the gap is even bigger when it comes to fx processing and it will be likely of even more relevance in the future when you you want to retreat your stuff with the prospective standards.

It should be a much better idea to upgrade disk space and through put. As 64 bit technology is right before the door ( AMD boards are already avaialable, MS will release their new OS soon and SW program writers will be following ) the current top end will be dropping quite some in price.

Get a good mobo like a MSI, a CPU up from 2.6 AMD and an 8 mb cache hard disk and you should be fine. At least the mobo and CPU should come you cheapo around end of this year / early next. ( Same about DVD burners which are already around ~ 160$ and shall be dropping some more, help you keep your HDs clean from stored sessions.)

Lalaman
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-30-2003, 07:20 AM
Calvin Calvin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lincoln Nebraska
Posts: 1,471
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

Frankly, the difference between 44.1k and 48k is little, the difference from 48k to 96k is barely noticeable at all. In my mind I just can't justify wasting more hard drive space and processor power to get such a little difference in sound that I can barely hear, much less anyone that dosen't know what to listen for. Your just going to crunch it all down to 16bit 44.1k anyway so the only people in the world who might be able to hear any bit of a difference would have to have monitors worth at least a grand. I don't know about you but I haven't spent a grand on my computer speakers, my home stereo or my car speakers. If you still think that you need to have a high sample rate like that, then you should probably be useing 88.2 since all you need to do to get to 44.1 is take out half the information. This is much easier than trying to convert down from 96k. However the best reason to work at 48k is so that you can actually use your adat to get more inputs. You can't do that at 96k.
__________________
Calvin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-30-2003, 11:24 AM
Lalaman Lalaman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,198
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

Quote:
Frankly, the difference between 44.1k and 48k is little, the difference from 48k to 96k is barely noticeable at all.
No offence Calvin, but this is about your personal hearing. I have no world class monitors here ( although respectable A/D D/A conversion for that matter ) only Yorkville speakers ( which are doing fine though ) and headphones.
And the difference to 96 kHz IS perceptible and by no means only subtle. 44.1 / 48 kHz is quite a different thing, comparably grainy and of inferior transparency.
There are clear differences. And not only for me, but also for others.

Also converting down for CD still means sonic advantage, the better the convertors used at high sample rates the rather.

I mean I was hearing some radio tootle in a waiting room today and thought whatever came through that thing would make no difference towards the quality of source ...
If it is that what you mean, you might be right, but if it is about recording and listening to higher sample rates with todays better studio / stereo gear, respectively with the qualities of tomorrows cheapos your impression about SR differences remains a personal subjective one. Not valid for general recommendation if I may say so, especially not in view of people who might want to ensure best future usability of their tracked audio material.

Lalaman
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-30-2003, 11:50 AM
tele_player tele_player is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 6,557
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

Quote:
your impression about SR differences remains a personal subjective one. Not valid for general recommendation if I may say so.

It's as valid as your recommendation to use higher rates.

Personally, my only comparisons were done using my 002, decent mics (TLM103, NTK, Rode NT5), Sony MDR-7506 phones and Event TR5-n. I wasn't impressed by an enormous difference. Both sounded good. 48k doesn't sound harsh or grainy to me.

Still, there's enough controversy around this that I'll only say 'use whatever sounds good to you'
__________________
Quad 2.5 G5, 4.5G RAM


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-30-2003, 11:59 AM
Lalaman Lalaman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,198
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

Quote:
It's as valid as your recommendation to use higher rates.
No, it is not.

And there is a actual tendency coming up, due to the differences becoming more evident with newer convertors. The opinion of "not much difference" is already obsolete.
And if you have style you shall stay with your defence worthy conclusion and go on tracking with 44.1 / 48 kHZ even when all around you won´t, which will be very soon.

After all its just waist of storage, innit?


Lalaman
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-30-2003, 12:13 PM
where02190 where02190 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boston, Ma USA
Posts: 8,145
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96..

The average listener is probably going to listen to music via mp3....via some pirated download...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-30-2003, 12:17 PM
tele_player tele_player is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 6,557
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

I'll probably be using 96k before most people, but so far, I'm not so convinced it makes much difference. There's a LOT of superstition and opinion in the digital audio community...

But, storage is cheap, and my CPUs are fast enough to handle the kinds of things I plan to do, even at 96k.
__________________
Quad 2.5 G5, 4.5G RAM


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-30-2003, 12:18 PM
daede daede is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California
Posts: 90
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96..

all interesting and valid points.

Maybe I'll just track my sessions at 96... I'm not really worried about hard drive space, but more processing power when it comes time to mix...

Which leaves my other question unanswered: can I just convert a session to 48 pre-mixdown, or does that make any sense? I mean, I would still have a version in 96 if/when I want to remix or mix in 5.1, and it's getting dithered down anyway...

daede
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-30-2003, 12:58 PM
Calvin Calvin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lincoln Nebraska
Posts: 1,471
Default Re: So convince me to record at 48 instead of 96...

Oh crap, I hate being obsolete HAHAHAHAHA

Alright, now listen to yourself. Yes people are moving up in sample rates, but for us digi 002 owners it's a matter of what you want to give up to do it. Do you give up sound quality? Sorry, I still stick with my opinion that there is hardly any difference other than numbers between 48k and 96k. Sorry, but I think you are a very suggestable person to believe that there is this huge difference or that anything below that is obsolete. Also I'm not willing to give up my extra Lightpipe inputs to have 96k. Untill everyone has a Super-audio cd player or only listen to DVD-A's, or even till they become common place I don't think I am going to change.

Yes we do have better converters now. So you can record at a little bit higher quality. Great, I'm happy for you. However it still has to go threw detrimental conversions back down to 44.1 or worse yet to mp3. Yes we do have some good dithers out there now that help us with that but even dithers like the Pow-r and apogee dither only get by with it by adding noise into the signal. Thats right they ADD noise, to get your audio back down to a normal sample rate. It may be ok for one conversion, but you better be wary of using it to many times. All in all I still argue that the end user dosen't care, and wouldn't have a clue if you recorded at 96k or not, they will listen to it on cd, over a badly compressed radio or a bad mp3. The fact is that no one cares but you.
__________________
Calvin
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
Convince me to get an 11R instead of an Axe Fx II - ver. 11 HwyStar Eleven Rack 9 08-21-2013 02:10 PM
Convince me PT was not a mistake. acpowell@wavecable.com 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 77 04-19-2010 06:15 AM
somebody convince me i'm not wasting my time on PT!!! Tricky Sam Pro Tools M-Powered (Win) 13 02-23-2009 10:17 PM
Convince me I need 6.1! Steve Moore 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 29 07-04-2003 01:38 AM
Convince Me That 5.1 Surround Is A Benefit SonOfSmawg General Discussion 33 03-29-2001 01:16 AM


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