Most Common Pro Tools Sample Rate On High End Music Productions?

[777]

Most Common Pro Tools Sample Rate On High End Music Productions?

What sample rate are you all seeing the most? 44.1, 88.1? What?



A 777 Subject.

[Steve G]

I'm seeing mostly higher sample rates, 96KHz and 88.2KHz, I'd say 70 to 80 percent.

Steve

[777]

Steve G,

What do you see more of? 96K, or 88.2K?


A 777 Subject.

[crna59]

Originally Posted by 777

Steve G,

What do you see more of? 96K, or 88.2K?

Whatever it's being dithered to....

176 or 88 = 44.1 Music CD
192 or 96 = 48 DVD

Regards,

[Steve G]

I see mostly 96KHz. The projects that I work on are all mixed on analog consoles, so the Pro Tools is just a tape machine. If I track something that I know will be mixed ITB, I'll do it 88.2KHz.

Steve

[David Brown]

Originally Posted by Steve G

I see mostly 96KHz. The projects that I work on are all mixed on analog consoles, so the Pro Tools is just a tape machine. If I track something that I know will be mixed ITB, I'll do it 88.2KHz.

Steve

Same here.

David Brown

[kingneeraj]

For Hip/Hop I usually see 44.1/24..

for Rock, usually 96/24

[777]

I think 88.2 is safe ground.

A 777 Subject.

[MarkRB]

I'm still getting mostly 24/44, maybe 1 in 5 @ 96, I think the UK is slower on the uptake (dare I say more sceptical?) than the US.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by 777

I think 88.2 is safe ground.

A 777 Subject.

44.1 is still my most commonly-received sample rate from PT. 48K next, and 96K after that with a smattering of 88.2

My recommendations to clients: 96K if they can do it. 48K if they cannot. I definitely prefer 48 or 96 to 44 based on my incoming experience, and it seems to produce a slightly more open product on the final output. But it is amazing how much loss there is once you SRC back down to 44 and especially down to 16, but the net gain is there if you start higher.

My SRCs can handle non-integer ratios just as easily as non-integer. Is there an advantage of 96 over 88? I haven't done the shootout, a friend with critical ears did one and voted for 96. It's probably so subtle as to be insignificant.

BK

[lawrence_o]

I really wonder how hearable this will all be in the final mix. I just do it on 48kHz. Tried 88.2 and 96 too. Didn't hear jack difference. I do mix over analogue though...

96 is good for eating disk space I feel. Maybe if ever I get to do DVD projects but so far... And 192 is completely exagurated. Can't imagine people using it.

But then again, I might be as deaf as a bat


Cheers
Lawrence

[RedWallStudio]

If the end product is going to be 48 or 44.1, I have always worked in those rates. No one had ever been able to show me bonified incontravertable evidence that working in a higher sample rate is any better.... knowing that it will eventually be bounced down anyway. If someone is working in 88, 96 or got forbid 192 and then boucing it down to 48 or 44.1... Id really like someone to show me (so that myself or anyone else for that matter) that it sounds any different or better than if they were just working in 48 or 44.1 to begin with and didn't do the resampling. Honestly, logic tells me (and Im sure I might hear from the acoustic scientists if I am off base) that since 44.1 is not an even divisor into 88 or 96.. that some data is being interpolated when its sampled down... so what you get in the end isn't what you intended.

Ha ha.... like it matters anyhow, the yokels listening to it are hearing it in MP3 format off of I-tunes anyhow.dfegad

[Full Clip Audio]

Originally Posted by RedWallStudio

since 44.1 is not an even divisor into 88 or 96..

No but 44.1 X 2 = 88.2 I'm still not convinced that there is an advantage of 88.2 over 96 tbh though.

[777]

Everybody,

88.2 although not the most common in my opinion is 'safe' as a 'back-up' because it is a multiple of 44.1, & takes advantage of the benefit of better sonics whilst being able to take advantage of being used by just about 'every' Pro Tools HD plug-in in existence. At 176, or 192 there are plug-ins that are not compatible. And, even though 'high-end' mastering houses have the benefit of 'top flight' sample rate conversion the average Pro Tools HD facility does'nt, so when taking into consideration where the project may potentially go 88.2 wins. In the case that a project goes from 48k(or 96K) to 44.1k in studio transitions with 'mediocre' sample rate conversion the benefit would be there if the project had originated at 88.2 vs 48k(or 96K). In a best case scenario where it was 'guaranteed' that 'high end' sample rate conversion would be used thru the whole project well then chose the rate within which you can afford the hard drive space.


A 777 Subject.

[777]

Bob Katz,

What do you recommend for sample rate conversion. dCS, Apogee, a particular software application, or other? Also your opinion on Pro Tools HD's 'straight from the manufacturer' sample rate conversion, & dither?


A 777 Subject.

[Gduron]

Originally Posted by RedWallStudio

If the end product is going to be 48 or 44.1, I have always worked in those rates. No one had ever been able to show me bonified incontravertable evidence that working in a higher sample rate is any better.... knowing that it will eventually be bounced down anyway. If someone is working in 88, 96 or got forbid 192 and then boucing it down to 48 or 44.1... Id really like someone to show me (so that myself or anyone else for that matter) that it sounds any different or better than if they were just working in 48 or 44.1 to begin with and didn't do the resampling. Honestly, logic tells me (and Im sure I might hear from the acoustic scientists if I am off base) that since 44.1 is not an even divisor into 88 or 96.. that some data is being interpolated when its sampled down... so what you get in the end isn't what you intended.

Ha ha.... like it matters anyhow, the yokels listening to it are hearing it in MP3 format off of I-tunes anyhow.dfegad

96 does sound better than 44.1... even after getting your file back to 44.1.... why??... I have no idea.... i've been mixing 24/44.1 for a while now and I'm just trying to get rid of some gear so I can get back to mixing at 96...

[RedWallStudio]

I'd love to hear a sample that can actually demonstrate that two audio files.. one originally at 96 and then bounced to 44.1.. and one at 44.1 not bounced at all actually sound different. Last person I had try to demonstrate it... I could not hear anything different... I really feel he did because he wanted to sound different.

[gsilbers]

if your project ends up on a CD format then USE 88.2 !!!!!!!

you have 48+tracks each at 96 andf then you have sample downgrade to 44.1 then the math in the computer is harder with more dcimal places and more chance for for errors.
instead with of multibles of 44.1 or 48 if your project is intended for TV /film.

i know is a really detail and knick picking but is not more different than comparing RME's q apogees converters or using or not using a bigben master clock. or a better mic pre, its when your doing a lot of tracks when u start noticing.

[Gduron]

Originally Posted by RedWallStudio

I'd love to hear a sample that can actually demonstrate that two audio files.. one originally at 96 and then bounced to 44.1.. and one at 44.1 not bounced at all actually sound different. Last person I had try to demonstrate it... I could not hear anything different... I really feel he did because he wanted to sound different.

who knows if your going to hear any diference on a low quality mp3 file... like I said before... I have no idea why it sounds better... but it does... my ears don't lie...trust me... your going to have better sounding recordings at 96...it is a FACT for me... just like an a/d converter... it helps... but is not going to give you amazing sound!!!... I put 96 over 44.1 in that same category

[jdg]

unless your SRC is 5 or more years old.. there is no benifit of "even" multipliers for down/up sampling.

all modern "good" SRCs dont care. 96->44, 172->48
http://www.isenbergassociates.com/images/voodoo.gif

try it, you'll like it

oh, also, i get 44.1 and 48 mostly. and smile when i get 96

[bpatural]

i usually get 44.1 to mix, sometimes 48...every once in a long while 96...and I edited a project once transfered to 192 from 2" (big PITA, didn't sound any different to me).
-brian

[huarez]

Originally Posted by Gduron

who knows if your going to hear any diference on a low quality mp3 file... like I said before... I have no idea why it sounds better... but it does... my ears don't lie...trust me... your going to have better sounding recordings at 96...it is a FACT for me... just like an a/d converter... it helps... but is not going to give you amazing sound!!!... I put 96 over 44.1 in that same category

So far I had been explained to that issue, the reason why 96 sounds better to 44.1 when reduced to 44.1 is because of the noisefloor ,which is spread over a wider area in 96, so it results in a better signal to noise ratio. It´s like having an extra bit dynamic.

[theblue1]

This thread at Dan Lavry's PSW forum ought to serve up some food for thought on this very subject...

[7om]

Originally Posted by RedWallStudio

I'd love to hear a sample that can actually demonstrate that two audio files.. one originally at 96 and then bounced to 44.1.. and one at 44.1 not bounced at all actually sound different. Last person I had try to demonstrate it... I could not hear anything different... I really feel he did because he wanted to sound different.

I suspect that you wont notice much if any difference with the test you describe. Where 96k becomes meaningful is working with a bunch of tracks with a bunch of plugins in a typical mix. The differences of any single process on any single file at 96 vs. 44.1 are not as meaningful in isolation, but add up for every volume adjustment and plugin.

Try this test instead. Record a full session (at least 16 channels) at both 44.1 and 96. Mix these two sessions using the usual ITB fader moves, bussing and plugin effects (EQ, delays, reverb, etc.). THEN take the 96k mix and downsample it to 44.1 In fact, your observation that downsampling a 96k file to 44.1 is not meaningful works to our advantage at this final stage. The final downsampled file retains nearly all of the detail achieved from recording and mixing at 96k.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by 777

Bob Katz,

What do you recommend for sample rate conversion. dCS, Apogee, a particular software application, or other? Also your opinion on Pro Tools HD's 'straight from the manufacturer' sample rate conversion, & dither?


A 777 Subject.

Heres an 88.2 subject :-). The interesting thing about each of the processes we recommend is they often make just a tiny difference, but it all adds up in the end. For example, someone just posted that they have yet to see incontrovertible evidence that working in double sample rate really makes a diference for 44 and 48 end products. It's very hard to prove. But I feel that working at the double sample rate subtly improves things, and when you combine that with other incremental improvements in other areas, you get a better product. Improvements are CUMULATIVE.

One thing I'll say for sure, there is distinct improvement in purity of tone of the Cranesong HEDD's tube, pentode, and triode effects when working at 96K. It's not subtle. Digital compressors.... Maybe you won't notice it on one compressor on the guitars or vocal, but as the grunge accumulates, on each and every instrument, it starts to be noticeable.

Anyway, back to the question. Weiss is, in my opinion, a superb single pass SRC, quite nice going from 96 to 44, for example. DCS, I've used it many times but I don't have one here, it MAY be marginally better as a 2-pass unit, 96 to 48 followed by 48 to 44, for purists, but it is not quite up to the quality of the Weiss single pass. I say, "may" because I have not done the blind test, but both David Chesky and Bob Ludwig report that the DCS is the best if you do a two-pass conversion.

I honestly haven't tested Pro tools' tweakhead, I just didn't want to take a chance. Especially when there are specialist tools like Barbabatch or R8Brain that people have spent mucho hours refining and doing well available for reasonable price. Use the specialist tools for specialist jobs. No single DAW can do everything well. I found the 96 to 44 conversion or 44 to 96 conversion in SADiE to be lacking immediately and I don't use it, and I paid over $20,000 for my SADiE system and its plugins. There are some jobs that a $600 program (Wavelab) that I paid for does better than my SADiE!

So it shouldn't be a suprise that there are some things Pro Tools doesn't do great. If you are asking for an opinion, "is tweakhead good or bad?" I'd have to wager a guess, "it can't be bad, but it's highly unlikely it's great." Why take a chance when Barbabatch or R8Brain will set you back under $200? Some things are just not ragging over. :-)

[XSergeantD]

Sounds like everyone is under the assumption that everyone mixes ITB. Blah blah blah.. going to end up 44.1. So are all of your mastering facilities running complete 100% digital? Track at what you think sounds right, there is no right/wrong answer. But see what your mastering eng. prefers. If he/she goes thru converters, thru their analog gear and then the 1620 or whatever they're printing to now, your original sampling rate is quite moot.
But if you're complete digital and your mastering is complete digital, then I feel this post was on track.

my 0.5 cent

[RedWallStudio]

That actually makes more sense, and is probably why I can't hear much difference. I use pro-tools basically as a digital tape machine and don't use any plug-ins. The only thing I do ITB is fades, strip silence and occassional fader automation.. otherwise its all console and outboard gear.

[Daddy No]

I'm mostly the same as Red Wall. I use protools as a recording/editing/splicing/looping machine and hardly any plug-ins (& route the audio out through a console/outboard).

I tried 88.2/24 for a while but couldnt hear much difference except perhaps on sounds with a lot of 'sizzle' & also it restricted what I could do with digital effects (Orville, Capybara) so I switched backed to 44.1

One thing I wondered though is if there would be an advantage in recording the stereo pair (or stems) at a higher rate. I cant do this with pro tools but it would be possible to use a second computer with a different audio interface? Might also be a good excuse to add a HEDD to my set up....

Any thoughts/experiences of doing this?

[djveto]

I worked in big's in Hollywood for years. I have seen people do 44/24, 48/24 , 96 etc... never 192 you would need a Monster HD system in order to track a rock band live at 192 I'm from the" if it ain't broke don't fix it school". There has been alot of great records made on pro tools 888's and HD at 44.1. I would say its a matter of harddrive space ($) and system performance. In other words if you want a MXL 3000 at 96k thats fine but I'd rather have a Neuman U87 with a nice pre at 44k anyday. Front end gear over front end conversion for me. I preffer 44/24 beacuse I know I'm close to what ill be getting at 44.1/16 bits.

[waxx]

ITB mostly 44.1 (sometimes 88.2, mainly for more acoustic/jazz/classic stuff with little channel count), mixed on console i track in 96 and mix down to 44.1