[gl3ny]

Yes that’s right.

Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent

A lot of people have experienced a favourable difference when running softsynths at a higher sample rate though, so you should try having the source machine set to 96k for example, and record that audio in.

tuttThat’s not an option for me as my hardware is limited to 48k and I don’t really feel the need to run my plugins run @ 96k and rerecord them back in as analogue. That sounds like a lot of work to me and will considerably decrease workflow.

Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent

What's the rationale behind feeding digital sources in this way, is it a slave machine running cpu hungry plugs? (Just curious).

And again yes that’s right. The rational is to spread the load of processing power and increase workflow. The softsynth/sequencer computer has an RME RayDAT HDSPe and is slaved to a loaded protools TDM system with a 24ch pro control. Both the master and slave computers can access apogee convertors for recording analogue. By feeding 32 tracks digitally from slave to master I don’t ever have to record those tracks if I don’t want to and can keep them forever midi. Instead, I just monitor them through the PT system and get to use all the TDM plugins at the same time.

My apogee convertors are calibrated at -18dBfs, so I track analog @ -18dBfs. The DIGITAL gain structure to track at -18dBfs looks like this:

Slave computer plugin = low > Slave Computer Mixer = Fader @ unity > optical transfer to PT system. I adjust the pluggin output level to achieve -18dBfs the PT meters.

The softsynth pluggin output is set very low to achieve a -18dBfs at the PT meters. One advantage I see in doing this is that all my levels whether tracking analog or digital are relatively the same at the mix stage.

So my question is, should I track the softsynth plugins at -18dBfs and is there any technical advantage or disadvantage to this? Will I be loosing anything with the quality at the mix stage with such low settings at the plugin?