Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   So Much Gear, So Little Time (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/)
-   -   Record 48k via Rosetta or 96k direct to 002? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/526090-record-48k-via-rosetta-96k-direct-002-a.html)

kracor 2nd September 2010 07:57 AM

Record 48k via Rosetta or 96k direct to 002?
 
Dear slutz,

I have this choice to make:

Option 1 - Rosetta A/D conversion:
Record at 24/48 via Rosetta 800 into digi 002 via ADAT connection

Option 2 - ProTools A/D conversion:
Record at 24/96 via protools Digi 002 via analog INs

(For the sake of argument, the question supposes that 96k sample rate is superior to 48k, all things being equal.)

Thanks!

Chris900 2nd September 2010 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracor (Post 5746251)
Dear slutz,

I have this choice to make:

Option 1 - Rosetta A/D conversion:
Record at 24/48 via Rosetta 800 into digi 002 via ADAT connection

Option 2 - ProTools A/D conversion:
Record at 24/96 via protools Digi 002 via analog INs

(For the sake of argument, the question supposes that 96k sample rate is superior to 48k, all things being equal.)

Thanks!

Personally I would use the Rosetta. Much better conversion even at 24/48 IMO.

old ghost 2nd September 2010 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris900 (Post 5746344)
Personally I would use the Rosetta. Much better conversion even at 24/48 IMO.


I would imagine that will be the general consensus. It's all going to 44.1 anyway, and the rosetta does what it's meant to do better than the digi converters, even at 48k. Logic would say that the end product will be better going that route.

kracor 3rd September 2010 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old ghost (Post 5746490)
rosetta does what it's meant to do better than the digi converters, even at 48k.

Right...Makes sense. Thanks Old Ghost & Chriss900.

gervish 3rd June 2012 08:04 PM

Digi 002 with UA Apollo at 96k
 
Wow.

I'm really glad I found this thread. I recently bought a UA Apollo Quad, mainly bc I wanted better converters than the 002, which I've used to good effect for years. I was pretty excited and optimistic about the Apollo, and I'm sure I'll grow to love the increased fidelity of my recordings, but the thing that took me by surprise was how dependent my workflow had become on the Digidesign interface-only feature known as "Low Latency Monitoring," something that the Apollo, or any non Avid/Digidesign interface for that matter, completely removes from Options in Pro Tools. Annoyingly, every time I raise this issue with the Sales or techs at UA or at Sweetwater (where I purchased the Apollo), they all say the same thing, which is that Apollo has "zero latency," so what's the problem? Well, I KNOW the Apollo has zero latency, but I WANT TO MONITOR IN PRO TOOLS which is what I'm used to!!! I am a self-recordist who does a LOT of multi-tracked vocals (a la Queen), and I'm VERY accustomed to pressing record, singing something rather brief, and listening to it back instantaneously, doubling it, tripling, harmonizing it, doubling that, tripling that, and on and on. The problem with singing/playing/recording through the Apollo is you hear two overlapping signals of yourself: One with zero latency (from the Apollo) and another in Pro Tools which is of course disgustingly late (sounds like a delay pedal) because there in no longer the "Low Latency Monitoring option in Pro Tools when you use a 3rd party interface. The only solution is to press Mute on the track you're recording in Pro Tools, and then unmute it to hear it back, which is insanely annoying when you're used to working quickly. Not to mention the larger problem of not being able to adjust your level or panning or anything as you go in Pro Tools while tracking, because it needs to be muted while you're tracking. The level in Apollo's Console is already at max and so the only way to raise your level is to lower your entire mix in pro tools, which then becomes obsolete the minute you unmute the track in pro tools. Needless to say, all of this was PAINFULLY inefficient in terms of work-flow.

Sorry for the long intro (this is related to the above thread, I swear), but one person at UA told me that I could still get the benefits of my Apollo by simply connecting it to my old Digi 002 via SPDIF, which would allow me to go back to using the 002 as my playback engine, thus restoring the Low Latency Monitoring feature to my Pro Tools work-flow, and allow me to Monitor everything in real-time in Pro Tools (something I refuse to believe is as exotic of a concept as the people at Sweetwater and UA tried to make me think it was).

Well, I did that, but playback is now virtually impossible. hjghfgg Even when running a session with basically no plug-ins and at 1024 buffer size, I get crashes and CPU errors out the wazoo. I also just recently switched from 44.1k to 96k. Could that be my problem? Is the issue SPDIF at 96k? Should I try ADAT? Should I abandon the 96k idea? Should I just deal with a godawful work flow and deal with the inability to monitor in Pro Tools while recording? HELP!!!

Any help/advice would be VERY appreciated. Thanks.

-G

Matt Ottewill 5th June 2012 04:18 PM

Honest admission
 
In a blind test I can't hear the difference between 44.1, 48, and 96. Am I alone?

I record at 48/24 because my system can easily handle it and I understand well the theoretical advantages of 24bit.

Doc Mixwell 5th June 2012 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Ottewill (Post 7947871)
In a blind test I can't hear the difference between 44.1, 48, and 96. Am I alone?

I record at 48/24 because my system can easily handle it and I understand well the theoretical advantages of 24bit.

I can hear a difference, but I am not willing to admit its huge.....or even small.

I record 44.1, with my converters, because I fear sample rate conversion, and I think my hardware sounds awesome at 44.1.

I STOPPED recording higher sample rates, after I witnessed how they cripple systems, tracks, mixes, and people.