The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
2nd rig for printdown at 192K? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 22nd January 2015
  #1
Lives for gear
 

2nd rig for printdown at 192K?

Ive been toying with this idea in my head. I could use my current PT system exclusively for playback out to my console and outboard gear. All of my sessions are recorded and mixed at 96k already. I usually just print back off the console into the same PT session.

I use SSL alpha link converters so I don't have the ability to try 192k. Thinking about getting a high end AD/DA (Burl B2s) and connect them to a digital HD I/O as part of the printdown right and run the two pro tools systems together via Satellite link to monitor and print down @ 192k.

I can use my OCX clocks 7th and 8th outputs to clock the playback rig at 96k and the monitor and printdown rig at 192k.


Is this even worth it just for the monitor and print at 192? Its not a DSP or computing power issue that prompted this idea. I have an extra mac pro and PTHD rig available thats just sitting currently. So I already have most of the gear I need. Would still need to spend a few thousand to make it a reality. All this would be just for the 192 printdown/ monitor.

Please share your opinions.

Thanks.

Last edited by Ienjoyaudio; 19th February 2015 at 05:50 AM..
Old 22nd January 2015
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
You should be able to rent a 192 converter (or even a few different ones) for a lot less than a few thousand bucks. Then you'd be able to make the choice based on your experience with your productions on your gear.
Old 22nd January 2015
  #3
Lives for gear
 

I see. Thanks for the response.

I guess these super high sample rate questions have to come down to personal preference.

A lot of people don't even buy into the 96k thing. I personally starting working at 96k and never looked back. Would printing at 192 be another huge jump like 44.1 to 96k?

Just wondering if anyone else feels the same way about 192k.
Old 22nd January 2015
  #4
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Its probably due to many factors. A high quality 96K converter may well sound better than a cheap 192K. I work at 88.2 because my mastering engineer thinks (based on his tests) that the down conversion to 44.1 creates less artifacts. I did a couple "just for kicks" things at 192k and I just don't feel the "need" for it. I suppose if stupid Avid didn't limit track counts in native, I might work at 192k...just 'cuz.
Old 22nd January 2015
  #5
Lives for gear
 

I do the same thing but the print is at 96khz. I really can't see a reason why 192khz would be useful? Aren't all the HD tracks and HD things are 96khz? Mastering engineers love receiving the mix at 96k anyway as that is usually the sample rate they work. I'll tell you though when I started having a separate rig it made a big difference. I enjoy mixing and hear more detail at 96khz anyway rather than the native session rate (whatever it happens to be on the day of the mix) and it's also easier having it on another computer because you can set the buffer size super small and not worry about crashing the project. And when the buffer rate is high in the actual project, there is latency on the return and things don't line up visually which sometimes can cause problems.

But whether it's 96khz or 192khz I highly recommend a 2nd rig, if you can afford it. The reason affordability is an issue is because it's more of a luxury than a necessity.
Old 22nd January 2015
  #6
I'd just get the Burl and run it back into your rig @ 96k .

All the records you like and listen to most likely didn't go anywhere near 192k.

With a separate rig, printing stems etc would be more hassle than currently as well.
Old 22nd January 2015
  #7
Emi
Gear Addict
 
Emi's Avatar
 

I think I'm one of the few that likes recording at 192Khz for classical music. It's closer to analog to my ears.
Old 22nd January 2015
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodwindy View Post
One more advantage to running a second rig is having the extra computing power. I run the Waves L316 on the second rig, a nice sounding Maximizer/Limiter. It is made for mastering, and advises against running it simultaneously on your playback machine.
I would never master in the same session that I'm mixing in, I think that's a moot point for most pros...if you're mastering a project, you need to balance tracks against each other...you can't really do it as you go along.
Old 16th February 2015
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Just a quick update here. I experimented with printing to my 2nd PT rig at 192. I don't have the B2 yet so I was using my RME ADI 2 for the 192 conversion.

In the end it was just a hassel. For me at least. I have my macs networked together but it still felt cumbersome for not a lot of sonic improvement.

The sonic benefit was very very small. Granted i'm sure that would change once the B2 gets here. But as PsychoMonkey said. Just sticking with 96k and reprinting back to the original session works. It isn't broken. No reason to fix something that isn't broken.

I might give it a shot again once I have the Burl converter. Maybe the results may change then.
Old 16th February 2015
  #10
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
Usually what we do is take the PT session that we receive (which is usually 44.1) and do a "save copy" and up rez to 88.2 which is our choice of resolution. then mix thru the desk & outboard back into the session thru our Burl ADC.

By uprezing the session to 88.2 we can record our 2-mix at the higher resolution.

And it's easier-
Old 16th February 2015
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstory View Post
Usually what we do is take the PT session that we receive (which is usually 44.1) and do a "save copy" and up rez to 88.2 which is our choice of resolution. then mix thru the desk & outboard back into the session thru our Burl ADC.

By uprezing the session to 88.2 we can record our 2-mix at the higher resolution.

And it's easier-
If you have the processing power, AND you feel working at higher sample rate gives you a noticeable benefit, this is a logical way of working.

It makes sense to upsample first of course, rather than at the end of the process...I've actually seen people do this...which seems daft to me.

stems, archiving, and other working practices seem like a massive hassle with a separate rig, unless you clock and sync them.
Old 16th February 2015
  #12
Gear Nut
 
Free Mind's Avatar
 

I think it's a great way to work. I have a second rig - PC with Lynx AES card connected to the Burl B2. When I'm not using the Burl for tracking, I use it as a capture converter to record the mix from the console. Think of it as a digital "2trk tape machine" if you will. That way I record my mix at any sample rate I choose. Recording the mix at 192k gives you an ultra high def stereo file. I can give that to a mastering engineer or I can use that file and master in house. I have a mytek dsd converter I use to monitor the incoming Burl PC signal at the console. The mytek supports AES and FireWire connection. So JJ it's time to meter the 192k file, I run it out of my main rig, the mac, out of the mytek dsd con at 192k through a mastering chain of choice, then record the final mastered print back to the Burl at 44.1 for CD or 48 or whatever for later MP3 conversion. I can actually go either way, from pc to mac, or Mac to PC from the mytek to the Burl capturing at any sample rate I want. Ultimate versatility with absolutely no signal degrade due to ITB sample rate conversion. It litteraly works like a tape machine. Love the workflow, love the flexibility.
Old 17th February 2015
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Mind View Post
I think it's a great way to work. I have a second rig - PC with Lynx AES card connected to the Burl B2. When I'm not using the Burl for tracking, I use it as a capture converter to record the mix from the console. Think of it as a digital "2trk tape machine" if you will. That way I record my mix at any sample rate I choose. Recording the mix at 192k gives you an ultra high def stereo file. I can give that to a mastering engineer or I can use that file and master in house. I have a mytek dsd converter I use to monitor the incoming Burl PC signal at the console. The mytek supports AES and FireWire connection. So JJ it's time to meter the 192k file, I run it out of my main rig, the mac, out of the mytek dsd con at 192k through a mastering chain of choice, then record the final mastered print back to the Burl at 44.1 for CD or 48 or whatever for later MP3 conversion. I can actually go either way, from pc to mac, or Mac to PC from the mytek to the Burl capturing at any sample rate I want. Ultimate versatility with absolutely no signal degrade due to ITB sample rate conversion. It litteraly works like a tape machine. Love the workflow, love the flexibility.
Hi. Can you describe your gear set up for this more? Its sounds pretty cool, but I wasn't quite able to grasp how you had everything connected to what converters and computers. Can you explain more?

Thanks.
Old 17th February 2015
  #14
Gear Nut
 
Free Mind's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ienjoyaudio View Post
Hi. Can you describe your gear set up for this more? Its sounds pretty cool, but I wasn't quite able to grasp how you had everything connected to what converters and computers. Can you explain more?

Thanks.

Sure. It's two independent systems linked.

System 1, MAC computer <---> 16ch i/o converters <---> console ----> monitors. Here you can track thru the desk into the mac as well as monitor your 16ch out to the desk for mixing.

System 2, PC with AES PCIe card connected to the Burl B2 and the Mytek DSD DAC. Mytek is connected to the desk under ext. monitor, so at the flip of a switch you can hear the master out(your mix) or the mytek DAC coming from PC.

So your mix is done, which it's really not, but let's just say it is, you can record it to the PC/Burl at any sample rate you want. It's independent. Just as easily as recording your mix to an ext 2trk tape deck. You plug the desk master outs to the tape recorder or to the Burl.

What's cool is the Burl has 2 AES outs. So I have it connected to the PC as well as my 16ch converters that connect to the mac, giving me 18ch into the mac and letting me use the Burl during vocal recording or any overdubs. The Mytek also has onboard input selection, so it can take signal from the PC via AES and I have it connected to the mac via fire wire. I can play material from the PC or the MAC thru it. Again the mytek analog out is connected to the console so you can monitor any signal coming out of it.

The MAC and PC are networked so you can drag files back and forth from them. So let's say I complete a mix on the desk, I send the master out to the Burl and record to the PC. I can monitor what the Burl is recording because I can switch the monitor section of the console to ext monitor and hear the mix out of the mytek connected to the PC even though the console is performing the mix since it's monitor section is separate from the master section. I hear what the Burl hears. This lets me track the file in ultra high def if I want, 192k. So that's my mix file. I can then send that to the mastering engineer, or I can then play it out of the mytek dsd into a mastering chain and record it back into the mac via BURL AES... Or the PC via BURL AES (Burl has the 2 AES outs) or I can even put the file on a laptop and play it out the Mytek and record thru the Burl or any other converter. The PC out is also connected to the 16ch converter that can be monitored thru the desk. So there is no cable switching. It's just a mater or where you put the file and the i/o selection you make. And when I play the high Rez mix file back to master in house, I can record it at any sample rate I want because it is always going from one independent system to the other, even though they are networked and connected they still run separate at any given time. So my high Rez master file can be recorded at 192/96/48/441... Whatever you want. Then finalize it with minimum ITB conversions. I tried attaching a simple diagram...
Attached Thumbnails
2nd rig for printdown at 192K?-image_528_0.jpg  
Old 18th February 2015
  #15
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
I like the sound of 192, it seems a bit more relaxed to my ears than 96. I'm not sure the improvement on an already 96k mix would be huge, but try it out. It should sound good with console and the Burls.
Old 18th February 2015
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Fidelis's Avatar
 

That's a very interesting topic. I've been thinking in a second rig for a long time.

My problem is I receive lots of sessions at 44.1 or 48khz. As I mix thru a console (SSL) with lots of ouitboard I always feel that recording back to protools at 44 or 48 (whatever sample rate the sessions is) I would loose quality.

I did some tests with another interface (prism lyra2) recording the same mix in another software (same computer) at 88.2. Then I converted both mixes to 16 44.1 and for me the difference was huge. Much better sound of the 88.2 mix even after the conversion.

The other problem I have now is how to sync both programs. As I print lots is different takes of the same mix (normal, +1db, -1db, instrumental, acapella, etc...) I need those files to be aligned...

I loved the fact that only using one computer I could record two mixes at the same time. But how to sync it still a mystery to me. Ideas? Oh, I did it manually by putting a sign before the audio but that is so much work...
Old 18th February 2015
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Fidelis's Avatar
 

Oh, I don't think 192 is worth it... Did tests here and didn't hear any big difference between 192 and 96...

Last edited by Fidelis; 18th February 2015 at 03:15 PM..
Old 18th February 2015
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstory View Post
Usually what we do is take the PT session that we receive (which is usually 44.1) and do a "save copy" and up rez to 88.2 which is our choice of resolution. then mix thru the desk & outboard back into the session thru our Burl ADC.

By uprezing the session to 88.2 we can record our 2-mix at the higher resolution.

And it's easier-

I just don't see any benefit to upsampling a whole session. You are adding no actual quantity and depending on the conversion method adding more issues. Maybe plug ins work better and I suppose converters work better even in the session for outboard fear round trip conversion but its easier and less taxing to get a second rig just for hi res mix down.

But hey there's no rules
Old 18th February 2015
  #19
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by aramism View Post
I just don't see any benefit to upsampling a whole session. You are adding no actual quantity and depending on the conversion method adding more issues. Maybe plug ins work better and I suppose converters work better even in the session for outboard fear round trip conversion but its easier and less taxing to get a second rig just for hi res mix down.

But hey there's no rules
Definitely no benefit to the existing session- but our mixes run out all analog and certainly benefit from the return trip of the stereo mix back in at the higher resolution.

But to each his own-
Old 18th February 2015
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidelis View Post
That's a very interesting topic. I've been thinking in a second rig for a long time.

The other problem I have now is how to sync both programs. As I print lots is different takes of the same mix (normal, +1db, -1db, instrumental, acapella, etc...) I need those files to be aligned...

But how to sync it still a mystery to me. Ideas?
I've always mixed down to a second computer. For mono mixes, stereo, or stems etc. It's an extension of the way I grew up (multitrack machine, console, mixdown machine). It's also just part of the built-in structure of a using a daw farm. You can easily mix daw types for this too.

Sync can easily be sample-accurate with your transports and external synchronizers. If your sound cards have adat/work clock etc, you're set for creating a farm... even if it's two machines, one for multitrack and one for mix. Everything works as one. Just like locked tape machines only tighter. The old frame-rate type lock is perfectly fine too (imo) for daw transports if your sound cards have limited sync connection ports.

As to third party synchronizers..... daw farm topics around here describe those.

I actually like the concept of routing audio out of my da from machine one to ad input(s) of machine two for mix. But I can certainly keep it all digital via adat etc if I want.

With a dedicated mixdown "HPStuderA80", I can run stems or mixes in any final sample rate I want (all locked to machine #1 ). Or do a quick run in additional formats/rates if needed. Really clear workflow.

I don't consider there to be a quality loss with the ad/da thing.... routed through my patchbays first (of all things). No loss for me anyway....in no small part because I think everything nowadays is too clean and sterile sounding anyway.

If anything, I get a lot of comfort in running my rigs like the old tape days and I suspect a little mojo gets in... not unlike the mojo that may have been introduced by 40 miles of cabling/patchbays/tape machine analog connectors etc of the old days....... which I never heard anyone complaining about in the old days.

I have routed mixes directly back into projects but it's a workflow that's just not for me. In fact, I OFTEN run a multitrack project from daw 1 to daw 2 as stems (just like the slave reel sync machine concepts of the old tape days). That way, rather than dealing with 168 tracks on the main daw, I'm looking at an orderly set of 32 or so tracks on daw #2 ... the premixed stems. Which I may or may not have used a bit of automation or effects/compression on before sending them over.

Forces me to use my right brain focus on mixing only those stems (back to a new project in daw #1 ). If a particular comped stem track just simply doesn't work at mix, no problem. I open the main project, re-think the lead vocal or lead guitar or whatever stem, and re-send it as a diff kind of comp mix.

I know that sounds too complicated for some.... or simply not a good workflow. But after all these years, I tend to know what my stems are going to sound like without having to go back for a lot of re-mixing. And like I say, I'm always (at mix) thinking in workflow terms of as if two or more tape machines are sitting there. With, for me anyway, a max of 46 or 50 some individual tracks to "think" about.
Old 19th February 2015
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Mind View Post
Sure. It's two independent systems linked.

System 1, MAC computer <---> 16ch i/o converters <---> console ----> monitors. Here you can track thru the desk into the mac as well as monitor your 16ch out to the desk for mixing.

System 2, PC with AES PCIe card connected to the Burl B2 and the Mytek DSD DAC. Mytek is connected to the desk under ext. monitor, so at the flip of a switch you can hear the master out(your mix) or the mytek DAC coming from PC.

So your mix is done, which it's really not, but let's just say it is, you can record it to the PC/Burl at any sample rate you want. It's independent. Just as easily as recording your mix to an ext 2trk tape deck. You plug the desk master outs to the tape recorder or to the Burl.

What's cool is the Burl has 2 AES outs. So I have it connected to the PC as well as my 16ch converters that connect to the mac, giving me 18ch into the mac and letting me use the Burl during vocal recording or any overdubs. The Mytek also has onboard input selection, so it can take signal from the PC via AES and I have it connected to the mac via fire wire. I can play material from the PC or the MAC thru it. Again the mytek analog out is connected to the console so you can monitor any signal coming out of it.

The MAC and PC are networked so you can drag files back and forth from them. So let's say I complete a mix on the desk, I send the master out to the Burl and record to the PC. I can monitor what the Burl is recording because I can switch the monitor section of the console to ext monitor and hear the mix out of the mytek connected to the PC even though the console is performing the mix since it's monitor section is separate from the master section. I hear what the Burl hears. This lets me track the file in ultra high def if I want, 192k. So that's my mix file. I can then send that to the mastering engineer, or I can then play it out of the mytek dsd into a mastering chain and record it back into the mac via BURL AES... Or the PC via BURL AES (Burl has the 2 AES outs) or I can even put the file on a laptop and play it out the Mytek and record thru the Burl or any other converter. The PC out is also connected to the 16ch converter that can be monitored thru the desk. So there is no cable switching. It's just a mater or where you put the file and the i/o selection you make. And when I play the high Rez mix file back to master in house, I can record it at any sample rate I want because it is always going from one independent system to the other, even though they are networked and connected they still run separate at any given time. So my high Rez master file can be recorded at 192/96/48/441... Whatever you want. Then finalize it with minimum ITB conversions. I tried attaching a simple diagram...


Hey. Thanks for taking the time to explain and draw the signal flow diagram. I wasn't aware that the B2 ADC has TWO AES outputs. Thats where I was getting hung up. Also just seeing it drawn out helps too. Thanks

Im definitely going to try this again. Gonna wait until my bank account will afford me the ability to get the Burl, should be soon. I'll have to spend some time drawing diagrams of my own gear too in order to figure out all the signal flow. Just finishing up a project in a week or so here. Should have enough cash to get what I need and try to tackle this. Thanks





As far as performing an uprez on the session BEFORE mixing. I do that all the time as well when I get tracks that were not recorded at 96k. To my ears I find it to be indispensable. Processing tracks with plugins at 96k rather than 44.1 is a big difference. Even if its just an upsample. Also printing the track back into the session at 96k after analgoue summing and 2 bus processing. Again, just my ears and personal opinion.

If I had a full on dual path console, I probably wouldn't do this. Everything then is all analogue. When using consoles in a hybrid fashion, IMO uprezing is a big step forward.

Last edited by Ienjoyaudio; 19th February 2015 at 05:48 AM..
Old 19th February 2015
  #22
Gear Nut
 
Free Mind's Avatar
 

No problem. Hope it works out soon. Really enjoy using the Burl.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump