48K vs 44.1 - That big a deal?

[Nika]

Bob Katz and many others have stated that they've yet to be able to discern POW-r type 3 from the 24 bit mix in a listening test at appropriate listening levels.

Nika

[love666]

Bob Katz and many others have stated that they've yet to be able to discern POW-r type 3 from the 24 bit mix in a listening test at appropriate listening levels.

Nika

i will try to access a hardware unit

[K.I.]

I work by 96k on PT. And, it makes to 48k by Lavry Engineering of AD "LavryBlue", it Rimittings with L2 of Waves (hardware), and it is monitored. I like 96k in the process.

[Soliton]

Hey Nika,

I forget if it was this post or a similar one, but you were talking about the differences between using an external device as a master clock or using the internal convertors. I've got a 002r and I'm in need of some new pre's connecting via ADAT.

I'm either going for the Focusrite Octopre or the Presonus Digmax LT. Even though I'll be getting the highest quality and shortest cables, I'd still like to clock off my 002r for the many reasons you gave earlier. Now here's my question: Since the Digimax has no optical IN, I wouldn't be able to complete the loop sync, so would it have to be the master? Is this enough of a deterrent to go towards the Focusrite so I can still use the 002r as the master? Am I crazy or does this make any sense

Should I be more concerned with the quality of the preamp (Focusrite Platinum vs. Presnous) than what my master clock is?

Thanks a lot for the help - part of my next paycheck is going towards your book.

[Nika]

I'm either going for the Focusrite Octopre or the Presonus Digmax LT. Even though I'll be getting the highest quality and shortest cables, I'd still like to clock off my 002r for the many reasons you gave earlier.

Again, I can't tell you that it WILL be better clocking off of the Digi002r, just that their is greater likelihood that direction.

Now here's my question: Since the Digimax has no optical IN, I wouldn't be able to complete the loop sync, so would it have to be the master? Is this enough of a deterrent to go towards the Focusrite so I can still use the 002r as the master? Am I crazy or does this make any sense

It does make sense, independent of any craziness you may exhibit.

Should I be more concerned with the quality of the preamp (Focusrite Platinum vs. Presnous) than what my master clock is?

"More concerned?" I don't know. It's a complete picture type of thing. All of these things make a difference and you have to look at all of the characteristics and which will have the best result. I really have no firm advice for you here other than listening to those who have tried what you're trying to do or trying them both in your spare time.

Nika

[rdatman]

Guys-

I ran across your post today, and I want to thank you for probably the single most interesting read I have yet to run across on this forum to date. I am a project-studio Producer/Engineer focusing on the art of making great classical music recordings in the DC area. Over the years I too have been caught up in "keeping up with the Joneses".

You all know what that means, I'm sure, regardless of your budgeting limitations, if any. I have a question for you regarding the purpose of high bit/ high sampling frequency recording systems. I own a Motu 828Mk11 and an 002 rack. On location which is the bulk of work I do in terms of tracking, I use a digimax and have done 96 k and but mostly 44.1k projects. I have invested in good quality mics, mostly higher end AKG's and star quad cabling. I consider the Digimax a creditable piece of gear, and well worth the cost.

I look at the business model as a brick by brick approach. It makes no sense for me to get Protools HD before I have superlative mic preamps and my dream mics. So I find it funny that we are having a discussion about this when there is no evidence that high sampling frequency is anything more than a money making venture for all of the makers of hardware. Bits are far more important than Sampling frequency, if you ask me, but then I do extreme dynamic range recordings of acoustic instruments. Compared to the average studio I probably spend more time recording in the p-ppp range per year than most of you. So for me resolution is of great importance.

I can hear the difference between a mediocre 16 bit recording (recorded at a low level) and a good 24 bit recording from an adjacent room. Admitedly, I have some difficulty discerning a difference between good 24 bit and 16 bit with great dithering/noise shaping when paying the closest attention-- but then that's the point 24 bits give you some degree of fudge-factor, in case you peaks are not hitting right at -4db.

It would seem that we should improve the microphones, preamps, cables, speakers, amps and educate everyone involved BEFORE seriously going to this direction.

I would have been much happier to see Digidesign improve their clock and make superlative A/D, D/A convertors and masterful preamps, rather than invest money in this somewhat gimicky venture.

It reminds me of high end stereo stores, like Myer Emco.

I laugh every time I go into a Myer Emco store and am met by a pompous salesman (who clearly knows nothing about the recording aspects of the business, trying to sell me a 250 dollar lowest-possible-jitter digital audio cable, when most good studios use a fairly good 20-40 dollar equivalent to create the recording he's playing on his 50,000 dollar system. I mean people are just completly full of crap. Why listen on Matrix 801's when the studio putting out the recording used 300 dollar 828's and a 52x mass-produced cd that has so many data irregularities/non-linearities that completely negate the point of the superlative clock in his 3000 dollar cd player.

Perspective is in order. I am trying to make sense of this crazy world, too, and I keep coming back to this one point. I have good ears. I hear recordings come out of Great-named studios (that shall remain nameless and most of which can record 192khz) that sound way over-compressed, sound like they were imaged by an engineer having an acid flash-back and poorly designed in general. I am not interested in excuses or technology, just results.

After all it is an still art, NOT science.

I would wager that a great engineer could produce a grammy winning recording on an Mbox with standard Waves plugins, AKG 414's and dedication, inspiration and admiration for himself and his craft.

rdatman

[Soliton]

Thanks for the quick reply Nika.

[sukks2bu]

[quote. Certainly we can't actually use the dynamic range 24 bits can convey in a final mix, given listening environ noise floors and loudspeaker system limits. At the rate we're compressing things these days, I wonder if we truly need even 16 bits in the end product.

John-

[/QUOTE]


Sweet, I was thinking this along time ago, why do we need dynamic range when there is a battle for the "loudest cd" going on? Squeese the living hell out of your mix for an extra .5 db of gain. this kills me. I going back to putting out quite cd's just to be different.

[Mount Royal]

[QUOTE]
... It makes no sense for me to get Protools HD before I have superlative mic preamps and my dream mics... [QUOTE]


What constitutes better investment - better analog signal path vs. better digital componentry- is very personal. My analysis leads me to believe that good microphones, preamps, and compressors are worth as much to my present workflow, as they were worth at the time of purchase. I imagine that well thought out micrphone purchases today, for example, will provide you with good service throught your career - long after you'll be able to recall the various generations of digital hardware, firmware and software that we so passionately debate today. Now whether your work and budget really mandates investment in superlative mics and pre's, before investing in good 44.1 A/D's and clocks, is a tougher question. I'll just share that I sleep well knowing that the last $15 I invested improved my signal path, instead of those funds replacing a functional Mix sytem.

[QUOTE]
...Compared to the average studio I probably spend more time recording in the p-ppp range per year than most of you...[QUOTE]


What is p-ppp? I lack a lot of formal music training. Does this illustrate the high dynamic range native to acoustic intruments?

Best,

John Caldwell

[Duardo]

At the rate we're compressing things these days, I wonder if we truly need even 16 bits in the end product.

Most of the commercial stuff that's released today probably needs half of that, or less...

-Duardo