What To Do To Make 44.1k, or 48k sound like 88.2k, or 96k With A Digidesign 192 Box?

[777]

OK,

So the big boys tend to work with Pro Tools|HD at 88.2, or 96K then mix thru a large scale analogue board. Next step down is to mix on an Icon. But, what do you do if you want to record/mix at 44.1k but the audio just lacks that something that when done at 88.2k, or 96k, and all of this when using the Digidesign 192 analogue interfaces. I hear a distinct difference in a session done at the higher sample rates. Is there anything, or a plug-in that can help replace the depth of field, & body of the higher sampling rate?

A 777 Subject.

[max cooper]

Wouldn't that be something for nothing? IOW, if there were, who would record at the higher rates? It eats storage, resources, plugin count, etc.

[Gregg Sartiano]

88.2 and 96 -- high sample rates aren't a magic bullet.

Think about recordings pre-2003 or even 2004 -- when 44/48 PT Mix rigs were really the only game in town (digitally) -- do CD's really sound better now?

I've read that the biggest advantage of 88/96 is the response from digital EQ'ing. In that case, do a "save session copy in" at the high sample rate -- double it (i.e.: 44 --> 88, 48 --> 96) so the upsampling doesn't involve "gearboxing," and then have at it.

If you're hearing a distinct difference, that's cool. I went to 88.2 for about 2 months and didn't think the difference was anything to write home about, esp. considering that going through DSP and resources twice as fast was actually limiting my options, forcing me to consider bumping stuff down to 44/48 just to get the processing power.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by 777

OK,

So the big boys tend to work with Pro Tools|HD at 88.2, or 96K then mix thru a large scale analogue board. Next step down is to mix on an Icon. But, what do you do if you want to record/mix at 44.1k but the audio just lacks that something that when done at 88.2k, or 96k, and all of this when using the Digidesign 192 analogue interfaces. I hear a distinct difference in a session done at the higher sample rates. Is there anything, or a plug-in that can help replace the depth of field, & body of the higher sampling rate?

A 777 Subject.

No.

[FatStudio]

Hay

There are some advantages to converting up to 88.1/96k ,EQ sounds better ,reverb tails may use the extra hi frequencies even if triggered from 44.1/48k track .
Every plug or anything that changes transients can benefit too ,it wont change the way they react to the material but the output will use the hi resolution.

Any type of distortion plug in or outboard will sounds better because of the faster transient response.

Latency is half .

Outboard connected as inserts (using the analogue I/O ) will usually return a signal that isn't confined to the 44.1/48k the track was recorded in.

And finally ,when you convert tracks recorded in 44.1/48 to 88.2/96 you get a little more top because the Nyquist filter point moves up .

Hope this helps


RH

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by 777

OK,

So the big boys tend to work with Pro Tools|HD at 88.2, or 96K then mix thru a large scale analogue board. Next step down is to mix on an Icon. But, what do you do if you want to record/mix at 44.1k but the audio just lacks that something that when done at 88.2k, or 96k, and all of this when using the Digidesign 192 analogue interfaces. I hear a distinct difference in a session done at the higher sample rates. Is there anything, or a plug-in that can help replace the depth of field, & body of the higher sampling rate?

A 777 Subject.

Sorry..No.
..The guy that invents that 'll be a millionaire.

A better external clock[Big Ben,etc] might up the 44.1 ante a smidge..

Or..


Go hire an engineer who can make it sound[depth/body/detail] great at any sample rate.

I know guys who can record/edit/mix off old PT mix rig's:16/24 bit 44.1 k system's[pre 192 technology] ...and the stuff sounds great regardless

[tuRnitUpsuM]

777


if i were "mayor" of audio distribution standards ... "kids" or anyone for that matter would be listening to DVD-A at the very least... but unfortunately thats not reality...

I agree with Max and Greg here.... if the 44.1/48 khz mix isn't shaking ur rump....the 88.2/96/176.4/192/384/DSD mix wont either... in this day and age of MP3 and CD playback....48 khz is actually overkill... especially outputed to an analog console ... getting some "character" then reconverted...

unless you've been contracted to produce material for a high-sample rate release eg DVD-A even 5.1....it might not be worth the bump in sample rate... means to an end right?

if digital EQing..... i usually only tend to cut in digital....opting for an "analog" amplifier when boosting....(just personal)... much easier algorithms to cut than boost...adding numbers add work to audio "engines"....subtracting detracts work....in theory... upsampling then shouldnt be a problem ... taking into account...most plugs/apps do this out of ordinary "routine" ...

point you say!!! ... if necessity move up.... if not... you'll save alot of resource....and u give up little in noticable difference....given the media distributed


cheers just my two cents

[aussie_techie]

have you actually tested 48Khz you said 48 in the title but not in your post? 44.1 and 48 tend to get grouped together but 48KHz can raise the filters just enough to improve digital processing.

you may also want to consider a 2 channel D/A that will sound the same at any sample rate so you can accuratly compare the A/D without the difference in D/A

[Dave Peck]

Only thing I can think of would be to use better converters. A great 44.1 converter can sound more open and detailed than a lesser 88.2/96 converter.

DP

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Dave Peck

Only thing I can think of would be to use better converters.

Thanks for playing... I do believe we have a winning response.

Apogee makes some very nice sounding converters that interface with the Pro-sTools HD software fine and dandy... if you insist on using the Pro-sTools pogrom then at least look at getting into it and out of it better... you can also try any of a bunch of outboard clocks on your present rig... there are only 3 things I've found to be a bit dodgy with P-T... the conversion, the summing and the clocking... other than that the shit works great!!

As always, YMMV.

[Dirty Halo]

No difference. Makes no diference (as stated in most of the above)

Ok then... so all the "Pros" are going 44k or 48k?

Yeah, right.

Really.

Michael Weagner and the rest, what are you recording at, please?

[Rob Murray]

I agree with converters. The advantages of high resolution audio can be debated, but the real advantage is that as hinted earlier in this post the anti-aliasing filters can either move up an octave out of the audio spectrum, or be used at a smoother slope as to not disturb the sound so much. Now if you were to use a decent converter, with a better filter it may sound considerably better than your 192 converters doing 88.2.

The whole idea of EQs and Reverb is pretty preposterous. I especially enjoyed the idea that if I were to upsample to 88.2 that my reverb unit will magically create higher frequencies than were in the original recording, how would that work? The only validity to that statement I could imagine is by improving your anti-aliasing filters either by upping youre sample rate WHEN RECORDING (shouldn't help at all after) or by using better converters there is less phase shift in the highest range, but once youve record a 44.1 its already there. Also depending what setup you have, some plugins might not run as smoothly at hi res, meaning they could actually sound worse!

[djui5]

I usually record at 44.1, especially if I'm gonna be mixing in Pro-Tools. 88.2 sounds a little better, but it's really not worth all the extra drive space and DSP. I can max out an HD3 rig at 88.2 in just about an hour. Then I have to start printing fx.

If I were mixing on a console, and it was an "important" project, I'd record it at 88.2. Why not?

[FatStudio]

Hay Rob ,

About the EQ sounding better ,just try it ,Its an obvious change .

And about the reverb ,I'm not saying it will mack the actual track sound as if it was recorded in a higher sample rate ,I'm saying the reverb tail might have some resonance that will create reflections at frequencies above the original sample rate.

I'm not trying to piss you off man ,Its just my 2 cents

RH

[Dirty Halo]

By this logic, hey why don't we all just record at mp3 and save all sorts of drive space?

You guys are really going to tell me 44k sounds as good as 96k and/or it doesn't make a difference because it's all going to CD anyway...then give up now because it's all really going to mp3, right?

Right.

Personally, I'd rather make the best sounding recording I can and my concern for drive space is pretty distant second...to last.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

By this logic, hey why don't we all just record at mp3 and save all sorts of drive space?

You guys are really going to tell me 44k sounds as good as 96k and/or it doesn't make a difference because it's all going to CD anyway...then give up now because it's all really going to mp3, right?

Right.

Personally, I'd rather make the best sounding recording I can and my concern for drive space is pretty distant second...to last.

It's not just drive space that's an issue. Like I said, mixing an 88.2 file on an HD3 rig is a sierous PITA. It's not just a matter of it being more work, it's to a point where it impedes the flow of the mix.

You see, sometimes you do what you can to keep things flowing. Sometimes a small change in sound quality isn't worth all the extra hassle IF that extra hassle is going to impede the work flow and frustrate the person/persons involved. It goes with mixing, playing, whatever. Sometimes it's not worth nitpicking a take if your going to destroy the musicians confidence/mood/etc. It only makes the rest of the session that much worse. Sometimes you just move on.

There's nothing wrong with recording at 44.1, as long as it's 24 bits. I've done great recordings that way. I like 88.2 better, but it's not always a viable option, and that's ok. Don't beat yourself up over it, it's not worth it.

That's my point.

[Dirty Halo]

I guess for me and the way i work, I've never had rate slow anything up, so I have not run into the problem you are describing, which I 100% agree with...just not an issue in my case, so I go with what sounds best.

But yes, if it wre preventing from a better take or vibe, that would take priority.

Man, what sort of massive sessions are you doing? I've never run into a session that starts choking the rig...ummm, yet. (Now that I've said that...Murphey's law!_

-a

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Personally, I'd rather make the best sounding recording I can and my concern for drive space is pretty distant second...to last.

I'm with you. Drive space is cheap.

But DSP processing is expensive. And, when you run out of it, it limits your options.

Not only that, but 44/48 is a long-since proven "canvas" for hitmaking. You can't possibly compare 24 bit 44/48 full-bandwidth to mp3.

And, if you are mixing ITB with a high track count (or using tricks like parallel compresson & submixing), forget it. I've maxed out HD3 Accel rigs on G5's running all sorts of RTAS at 44k -- on plenty of occasions.

All I'm saying is that, on a 50 to 150+ track mix, you start having to think about picking your battles.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

By this logic, hey why don't we all just record at mp3 and save all sorts of drive space?

You can hear a lot in an MP3. Make it as good as you can.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Ok then... so all the "Pros" are going 44k or 48k?

I'll repeat what I said above.

Before HD rigs, yes.

Virtually >ANYONE< recording digitally pre-HD was recording at 44/48.

And think about time frame: not every studio jumped on the bandwagon right away. I remember seeing 64 channels of 888/24's in a certain SSL J-series room...well after HD had come out. And I also remember using OS 9 rigs in top "big rooms" well into the OS X era -- I think THAT had something to do with the fact that an upgrade would go against the studio's need to have clients' sessions (ahem...[comment deleted]...cough...cough) open up without hassle.

And if you look at copyright dates, realize that those recordings were probably started a year and a half to two years before the release date.

IMO, $$$ conversion (and clocking) is waaaay more important, like Fletcher said.

[Dirty Halo]

I was joking about the mp3 thing (although it is sadly poignant!)

I think (I THINK) everyone argrees, we take the best possible means to make the BEST sounding recordings we can, if DSP or work flow hinder that, better perforamnce outweighs better sound, and then that is a serious consideration and often a simple reality. But, given the choice, we go for the best sound...

And I'm going out on a limb, but I can hear a diference between 44k and 96k. So IF we can do, we do...do (did that sound right?)

-andrews

DIRTY HALO www.dirtyhalo.com

[Gregg Sartiano]

Somebody should bounce a mix in 88/96, save session copy, and bounce it in 44/48 and post the bounces.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

All I'm saying is that, on a 50 to 150+ track mix, you start having to think about picking your battles.

Somebody should bounce a mix in 88/96, save session copy, and bounce it in 44/48 and post the bounces.

They won't null. I can hear a difference too. 88.2 sounds more "professional". Less "digital".

flame away.

[Rob Murray]

Originally Posted by djui5

They won't null. I can hear a difference too. 88.2 sounds more "professional". Less "digital".

oh yeah? Is that a technical description?

[Dave Peck]

Originally Posted by djui5

They won't null. I can hear a difference too. 88.2 sounds more "professional". Less "digital".

flame away.

yes, but - the original question was 'how do I get better sounding tracks into PT WITHOUT changing from 44.1 to 88.2/96k?' and the answer to THAT question is to use better converters & better clocking at 44.1. Now, take that better converter and change IT to 88.2 or 96k and sure, you'll probably hear an improvement AGAIN, but that wasn't the question.

DP

[sage691]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

By this logic, hey why don't we all just record at mp3 and save all sorts of drive space?

You guys are really going to tell me 44k sounds as good as 96k and/or it doesn't make a difference because it's all going to CD anyway...then give up now because it's all really going to mp3, right?

Right.

Personally, I'd rather make the best sounding recording I can and my concern for drive space is pretty distant second...to last.

I still record into PT at 44.1khz. And though it may sound crazy, I'm still using an old PT 24 mix 5 rig on an antiquated G4. Works splendid for me! Never saw a need to upgrade to OS X either. Still running OS 9.2

Instead of upgrading to HD I bought a Trident console and a 2 inch tape machine. Analog is where it's at IMO. Hearing is BELIEVING! By the time my outboard rack is fully set up, it'll likely be $100 K of *hit -- ALL ANALOG BABY!

PT is a DAW, nothing more IMO. 192, 88.2 blah, blah, blah just a bunch of lame marketing hype.

Great room- U47- D.W.Fearn - Pultec - La2a --- and you HEAR the difference, no GeekSlut debate necessary! And the analog stuff won't be worth 10,000 % less next year when the GreatGigaSlut DAW comes out to replace today's *hit.

Hmmm, I wonder why ???


Sage

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Rob Murray

oh yeah? Is that a technical description?

fuuck

yes, but - the original question was 'how do I get better sounding tracks into PT WITHOUT changing from 44.1 to 88.2/96k?' and the answer to THAT question is to use better converters & better clocking at 44.1. Now, take that better converter and change IT to 88.2 or 96k and sure, you'll probably hear an improvement AGAIN, but that wasn't the question.

I wasen't answering the original question, I was answering Gregg's question. Your answer works if you are using crappy converters in the first place, but that wasen't part of the original question either. Let me quote it for you.

But, what do you do if you want to record/mix at 44.1k but the audio just lacks that something that when done at 88.2k, or 96k, and all of this when using the Digidesign 192 analogue interfaces.

He's using the same converters, so in this case the answer would be NO.

[Acoustic Cloud]

55.5

[tuRnitUpsuM]

Hi

just wanted to clairfy my earlier post (been bugging me) ...when i typed it... i had mis-understood the question asked by the original poster (777) . I thought it was a comparison to the "grouped sample rates".

kinda obvious as i had not mentioned any of the "ways" of getting the 44.1/48 k signal from the digi box to sound like 88.2 or higher ... some said "new converter"...but the orig question was with " A Digidesign 192 box" but are fair answers. Others say a myriad of things. Dirty Halo is selling me his rig and gonna start recording on a new 48 track IPOD rig to an MP3 format with built-in SJCL (Steve Jobs Compressor Limiter) 1356 j/d with psuedo transformers ( algo coding designed by MARYNAIR Softwares and Plumbing Supply ) ...ee.....

I guess the only really fair answer to your question (from my POV) and from what you have stated would be ....EXTREME close attention to detail... where u place the textures of your sound within the mix... microphone placement... eg.

Honestly....what does 96khz sound like ???? what does DSD sound like??? even 44.1?? please do not say like CD...because within all CDs ever produced NONE sound the same....

my point... in this post now that i believe i comprehend ur question alil more... is there isn't an answer to this question in its current state...


maybe if u said something like ive recorded two guitar samples...one at 44.1 the other at 88.2 .... im hearing a diffence ....the 88.2 has a alil bit more opened sound to it.... how could i get my 44.1 sample to sound like the one ive recorded at 88.2 without actually using the 88.2 sample rate...... then a narrower answer based on AN ACTUAL sound could be contorted and thought about and approached...

cheers

[djui5]

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM

Honestly....what does 96khz sound like ???? what does DSD sound like??? even 44.1?? please do not say like CD...because within all CDs ever produced NONE sound the same....

It's similar to asking if you could get the same sound of recording to a Studer A800 16trk when your recording to an Otari MTR90. I realize they are different machines, but it's very similar to the original question in this thread.

my point... in this post now that i believe i comprehend ur question alil more... is there isn't an answer to this question in its current state...

maybe if u said something like ive recorded two guitar samples...one at 44.1 the other at 88.2 .... im hearing a diffence ....the 88.2 has a alil bit more opened sound to it.... how could i get my 44.1 sample to sound like the one ive recorded at 88.2 without actually using the 88.2 sample rate...... then a narrower answer based on AN ACTUAL sound could be contorted and thought about and approached...

cheers

That is what he's asking, but instead of being specific, it's a general question about the sonic of the recording overall, no matter what you record. What is being recorded is irrelevant.