Recording at 192 khz on a MOTU Traveler?

[Nonsense]

I'm currently in the process of recording a folk album and I want to capture a warm and rich analog sound which sounds less processed.
T'm using a MOTU Traveler and Studio Projects VTB-1 with some Oktava mics (Ok, maybe not so high-end).
From what I've heard the A/D on the MOTU is far from the best in the leauge, but what I really want to know is:
Will the A/D perform worse in 192 khz than in 44 khz? Sound wise that is.
Will it add more jitter in 192 khz than 44khz?
Wouldn't a samplerate at 192 khz sound more complex and richer than 44 khz?

I know this i kind of a samplerate issue which has been discussed earlier, but my concern is with the Traveler - will it actually perform stable in 192khz?

[mds]

Generally speaking non-super high-end A/Ds perform best at their highest sampling rate. The Traveler is actually a pretty good sounding A/D compared to other MOTU stuff. 192 does sound better than 44.1 on this box, as does 96k. I'd suggest trying a few demo takes and then see what sounds best to you.

Mike

[Nonsense]

Cheers.

[Full Clip Audio]

Originally Posted by mds

Generally speaking non-super high-end A/Ds perform best at their highest sampling rate.
Mike

I have always thought it was the opposite and that they didnt perform well above 96

[Acoustic Cloud]

I would think you would need a smokin up-to-date box for 192...thats going to be a very hungry project.

[Nonsense]

Yes, well I thought I'd record all the tracks as 192 and then downsample it to 44 for mixing and mastering.

[Acoustic Cloud]

Originally Posted by Nonsense

Yes, well I thought I'd record all the tracks as 192 and then downsample it to 44 for mixing and mastering.

Well, of course! You really dont have a choice but to do it that way, but watch your cpu usage shoot up from the mountaintop, if you arent using a very current machine, with a ton of ram, and dual core!

[zakco]

Regardless of the A/D quality, one point to consider is whether or not the better resolution will be retained in the final product. If you're sending it to a pro mastering house which can perform SRC by using an analog chain or via high end digital SRConverters then I can see the point in recording at 96k or above. If you are mixing/mastering ITB yourself and the destination is 44.1 for CD I wouldn't bother using the higher rates. The very act of downsampling inside your DAW may offset any gains you achieved from recording at the higher rate in the first place. At least that has been my experience....yours may vary.

-Z-

[Bodymusic]

Originally Posted by zakco

If you're sending it to a pro mastering house which can perform SRC by using an analog chain or via high end digital SRConverters then I can see the point in recording at 96k or above. If you are mixing/mastering ITB yourself and the destination is 44.1 for CD I wouldn't bother using the higher rates. The very act of downsampling inside your DAW may offset any gains you achieved from recording at the higher rate in the first place. At least that has been my experience....yours may vary.

-Z-

That's interesting- Michal from Mytek recommends recording at a high rate (88.2.k/24 bit) and then downsampling (to 44.1k). But you think doing this through a PC at home would be a waste of time?

[Rogervandeberg]

I think it's more important to record at 24 bits than on 192 khz, or were you planning to go 24 bits?

BTW the traveler has very good a/d, much better than the other motu products. Ok, it isn't a fireface or a lynx, but imo there are other things to worry about before worrying about a better a/d.

Go with the traveler, go 96 instead of 192 and save some CPU and ram for great mixing


$0.02

[RedWallStudio]

Originally Posted by Rogervandeberg

I think it's more important to record at 24 bits than on 192 khz, or were you planning to go 24 bits?

BTW the traveler has very good a/d, much better than the other motu products. Ok, it isn't a fireface or a lynx, but imo there are other things to worry about before worrying about a better a/d.

Go with the traveler, go 96 instead of 192 and save some CPU and ram for great mixing


$0.02

Amen. Do a test track at 192, 96 AND 44.1... and then sample it all down to a reference CD. I'll but a buck that after you hear the results, you will never have an interest in tracking at 192.

[Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud

Well, of course! You really dont have a choice but to do it that way, but watch your cpu usage shoot up from the mountaintop, if you arent using a very current machine, with a ton of ram, and dual core!

Well, as a matter of fact yes I do.

Originally Posted by Rogervandeberg

I think it's more important to record at 24 bits than on 192 khz, or were you planning to go 24 bits?

Yes sir! Going for 24-bits.

Originally Posted by RedWallStudio

I'll but a buck that after you hear the results, you will never have an interest in tracking at 192.

Well, it worth a try at least.

[zakco]

Originally Posted by Bodymusic

That's interesting- Michal from Mytek recommends recording at a high rate (88.2.k/24 bit) and then downsampling (to 44.1k). But you think doing this through a PC at home would be a waste of time?

That's been my experience. But don't take Mytek's or My opinion on the issue. You need to do a blind test and hear for yourself.

I'm not sure how you could go about this in a truly scientific matter....perhaps taking some exceptionally well recorded material and play it back through high end monitors capturing it at both 44.1 and 192. Downsample the 192 version to 44.1 and have somebody play them back for you while you listen. If you can't reliably tell the difference between the two than that answers your question.

Maybe someone else has a better method....

BTW, I definitely suggest recording at 24 bit though. No debate about the advantages of that.


-Z-

[Acoustic Cloud]

Originally Posted by Nonsense

Well, as a matter of fact yes I do.

Nonsense, what other choices do you have, other than to end up at 44.1??

That is what I meant.

[mytek]

Originally Posted by Bodymusic

That's interesting- Michal from Mytek recommends recording at a high rate (88.2.k/24 bit) and then downsampling (to 44.1k). But you think doing this through a PC at home would be a waste of time?

This mustn't be taken out of context. It only makes sense if you are going to store or process the 88.2k material prior to converting it down. If it's a straight recording you may be ok with just 44.1 if that's the only thing you need.

Michal www.mytekdigital.com

[Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud

Nonsense, what other choices do you have, other than to end up at 44.1??
That is what I meant.

Well since I'm going to release it as a CD I guess 44.1 is the only choice I have.
Though I'm planning to maybe head over to my local high-end studio for the mix so I can mix it in 192 and then keep the 192 mix for future (?) re-releases. Don't think I've got the equipment for mixing in 192 myself.
But I haven't decided what to do yet.

[Bodymusic]

Originally Posted by zakco

That's been my experience. But don't take Mytek's or My opinion on the issue. You need to do a blind test and hear for yourself.

I'm not sure how you could go about this in a truly scientific matter....perhaps taking some exceptionally well recorded material and play it back through high end monitors capturing it at both 44.1 and 192. Downsample the 192 version to 44.1 and have somebody play them back for you while you listen. If you can't reliably tell the difference between the two than that answers your question.

Maybe someone else has a better method....

BTW, I definitely suggest recording at 24 bit though. No debate about the advantages of that.


-Z-

But you previously seemed to be suggesting that downsamping through a DAW was detrimental to the recording's sound quality- Were you infact implying that ANY kind of processing (using Wavelab, for example) within the PC was best avoided?

[Bodymusic]

Originally Posted by mytek

This mustn't be taken out of context. It only makes sense if you are going to store or process the 88.2k material prior to converting it down. If it's a straight recording you may be ok with just 44.1 if that's the only thing you need.

Michal www.mytekdigital.com

Apologies- didn't mean to take you out of context. So, if one wanted to store material at 88.2 (or make DVD-A's) AND make CDs at 44.1, might it not be better to make TWO seperate recordings!- rather than doing the one and then downsampling? This would be more time consuming, of course- but possibly better sound quality, perhaps?

Does anyone know where one can find any easy to understand idiot guides to recording 2-channel audio- for novices such as myself- it must be annoying for the more knowledgeful GS members to keep getting asked such basic questions?

[zakco]

Originally Posted by Bodymusic

But you previously seemed to be suggesting that downsamping through a DAW was detrimental to the recording's sound quality- Were you infact implying that ANY kind of processing (using Wavelab, for example) within the PC was best avoided?

No I absolutely wasn't implying that all digital processing was best avoided. I was speaking only about digital SRC.

In all honesty, I'm far from an expert on the subtleties of digital SRC. I only know what my ears tell me.

I do know however there is a fair amount of debate on this subject with no really clear conclusions. I also know that digital SRC is not all equal. Some apps are clearly better at this type of math than others and you probably shouldn't take ANYONES word for it.

Having said all that, try asking this question at Dan Lavry's forum:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/f/38/1101/

He knows a thing or two about digital audio.....

[Bodymusic]

Thanks Zacko- interesting site and a discussion about Mastering at 88.2 or 96kHz Vs 44.1kHz right now!

When you say 'digital SRC' do you mean something like this:

http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brain/

[zakco]

Yes, exactly.

The best form of SRC is probably the "accidental" variety that happens when you come out of your DAW via a high end D/A to access analog outboard gear. Once the audio is analog, sample rate is irrelevant until it is recaptured. At that point you could concievably capture the audio at both 44.1 and higher simultaneously. You could archive the higher rate for potential future release on high def media and use the 44.1 version for a current release on CD. sort of the best of both worlds....

-Z-

[Bodymusic]

Ahh, now you've lost me.

[Nonsense]

Originally Posted by zakco

Having said all that, try asking this question at Dan Lavry's forum:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/f/38/1101/

He knows a thing or two about digital audio.....

Well, I read through (skipped a bit) Dan's speech on 192 and settled for 96.
I've noticed that a single 5 min stereo track recorded in 192 gets very big, about 200mb - which is quite alot.

[Bodymusic]

Hi

Where is that speech, exactly?

[Nonsense]

http://lavryengineering.com/forum_im...ing_Theory.pdf

here's a few more

http://lavryengineering.com/index_html.html

[Ashermusic]

Bottom line here is that Dan Lavry says that 192 is simply marketing hype and that as much is lost as is gained . He recommends 96 if you are want to use a higher rate. In a perfect audio world he thinks the ideal balance would be somewhere in the 60s.

[mixerguy]

why not 88.2?

then the src is much easier math.

?

[Bodymusic]

Originally Posted by Ashermusic

Bottom line here is that Dan Lavry says that 192 is simply marketing hype and that as much is lost as is gained . He recommends 96 if you are want to use a higher rate. In a perfect audio world he thinks the ideal balance would be somewhere in the 60s.

I dare say he's probably right. BUT some 192khz converters, which invariably are bang up to date, have slightly better specs at lower sample rates than 96khz converters do (for e.g Mytek Stereo 96 = Crystal 120dB Dynamic Range and the Stereo 192 = AKM 123db DR)

Whether or not the slight improvement is WORTH the extra money, I do not know! But this is one reason why you might choose a 192 converter even if there's no intention of ever recording at 192khz- although I'm a total novice on the subject

[zakco]

Originally Posted by Bodymusic

Ahh, now you've lost me.

I was referring to mixing or mastering "outside the box" and the fact that analog audio has no sample rate.

-Z-

[Acoustic Cloud]

Originally Posted by Nonsense

http://lavryengineering.com/forum_im...ing_Theory.pdf

here's a few more

http://lavryengineering.com/index_html.html

Thats a really good read!! Thanks for that!