96k recording then downsampling???

[Cape]

Using HD2 sys..(192 and all that gubbins), did a track at 96khz, and it turned into a monster, it was supposed to be a pretty light acoustic track with about 20 trks.

Hammonds, more guitars of the amplified kind, big drums, ahhhhh......my test of HD at 96 got overwhelmed after I tried to mix (cards maxing out). So I saved session as ............to a 44.1 session.....now I heard a difference.....first time I've done this........less sparkle....makes you try and recapture what you just had a moment ago, but thats probably good seeing as I'm now hearing it in the real world (i.e CD 44.1).

Q is- If I record at 96khz, and then down sample a session to 48khz, so I can use more EQ's etc, is that better than just tracking the bluming thing at 44.1/48khz??????.

Is that Nika bloke in town, cause I'm sure he's got an answer!!

[jazzius]

AFAIK, protools downsampling is not high quality.......you'll actually end up with lower quality than if you'd started at 44.1 in the 1st place............especially if you record at 96, then down-sample the individual tracks to 44.1...........the difference is very noticable.......i can't think of an easy way to solve it........if you start at hi sample rates, you should definately stay there till the mastering.........

[Cape]

Well I'm fuked then!! Doesn't matter on this job, but gee did I hear that difference, whoooo, bit of a shame, I might do that long process of noting everything down, and print tracks down at 96k to free up chips. Fluck ducking hassle though.

[Cape]

Oh, forgot to mention if PT downsampling is crap, then does it matter that loads of plug-ins down-sample then up-sample, reverb 1 being one, amp farm being another. What I wanna know about is the Sony's doing that thing,

I doubt their doing it cause it seems only manufactures who have more established products are seeing this as a cost effective way of bridging the piracy problemo (Cheap and easy...well kinda!!)

[jazzius]

hmmm....good question........all i know is PT sample rate conversion sounds like shit.......i always do my sample rate conversion in samplitude at the highest quality setting......(it takes my athlon 1800xp 20 minutes to do a 5 minute song)..........good point about the plugs, though........i'm sure they only up-sample to multiples of the sample rate.........

[Cape]

They say don't worry about the up-down issue in things like reverb and distortion because it won't make a difference to the sound......errrr.....durrrrr.............a bright sound hitting a stoney wall will reflect very brightly.....therefore surely downsampling on the in will result in an bollox reverb!! Same goes for Amp farm (not sure what they did to Echo), harmonics are the key to distortion.......so it's bullshit if they up - down.

So why is Pro Tools down-sampling so poo, yet their reverb one can do it without any one noticing?

I hate the way soft develpers get round things in this way, word goes round faster than their marketing can.....saying that, people on cracks are shouting down the HD big time.

[droog]

If you are going to convert down from 96kHz , I'd suggest going to 48kHz , not 44.1 kHz. 44.1 does not go into 96 , 48 does! It's all math.

As far as downsampling in plugins goes , the amp farm issue was resolved in DUC a long time ago , it does not downsample. I even remember Nika admitting he heard the wrong info about that. Reverb one however does down sample. If you have any gripes about reverbs with low sample rates , just ask a few of the regs around here what they think of the Yamaha Rev-1 , or the Eventide SP 2016. Many will argue that these reverbs that use low sample rates and quantisation resolution (ie bits) sound better than their newer cousins.

[7rojo7]

As it is in heaven so shall it be on earth, or was it: on earth as it is in heaven?
When's the last time you listened to that crap?
Happens to be the truth, but the truth has many faces.
Instead of ****ing your clients get another HD card, or change over to something more flexible, this is where I'm at. It's not too late convert the overdub tracks to 96. At least the tracks will have a future.
I've decided to take out huge loans and go with a system that I'm half designing myself to keep my quality no bullshit clients: no bullshit gear; no bullshit life.
If you hear the difference you're 1% there.
I've been working 2" 15 ips DolbySR on important stuff for years, tranferring, edtiing and overdubbing to digital, because the work flow was smoother.
Now there's a quality revolution, 96/24 sounds good but DSD even "reconverted" to 96/24 sounds like the real thing.
I feel like I 'm "back in business".
Whatever we must go through to bring back quality must be done.

[Jules]

I use a Finalizer 96k with "up down" upgrade to SRC from 96k to 44.1

To my ears, I believe I retain most of what was good about 96k...

I just do that on my mixes

I dont have PTHD

[Robinhood]

I was going to suggest a nice analog mastering machine blah, blah, blah.



Then I'm thinking why not just do it the way I do it.
Its very simple, but very effective.

Record to your DAT MAchine via analog. Remember when we all had to do this? Why stop?. Treat your DAW as if you were still using an analog console. I have yet to play back a bounced mix to DAT and actually hear anything negative compared to the original mix. Maybe my ears are not as golden as some??. I oprefer to think I'm not as obssesive as some

What you are looking to do is simply record what you hear through your monitors without bouncing in PT's. (Which I definitely dont recommend). Its a simple but tried and tested method which works. You dont need to be digital all the way to the finished product if you really think about it. And the quality lost going analog to your DAT will be negligible.

A bad idea would be to downsample from 96 to 48. You would still have to convert that file to 44.1.

Next time you should also consider recording at 88.2. This does divide equally to 44.1 if you want to do it all in the box.

[Cape]

There was something I liked about DAT,better than CD???

I'm holding on to my machine. love them little tapes, chunky but funky.

[Robinhood]

Maybe they will make a comeback ?

[jajjguy]

I have read in a few places that converting from 88.2 to 44.1 is no different than converting from 96 to 44.1, despite the apparently simpler math.

here's one explanation:
http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=4754

[7rojo7]

I still use a portable Tascam DAT DAP-1 (it really has a nice limiter and some very useable, choose them over board pres, pres) for lots of things. Songwriting for instance. play a track on cd and overdub on DAT, why not? Field recordings, sound effects and similar.
Perfect. I'm superstitious and always record at 44.1.
Now the game has stopped at 128x44.1k and MADIxs hasn't yet caught up. SHIT