percentage of what? Performance? Sound quality? More customers?
What is it you are looking to achieve at 88.2 vs 44.1? What are you recording that needs to be that high of a sampling rate? If it's rock or hip hop...save yourself some money and stay with your current setup. You don't need higher sampling rates just record better music. People have been making fantastic sounding stuff for years at 44.1 or 48....
Opus

hI OPUS!
I mean overall. sound, performance

are you a PT user?
thanks

Is his percentage processor usage?

LOL

No...... I am an advocate of keeping samplerate conversions minimalized if you can. the 24/44.1 works well. When dat was the thing, 16/48 was the norm but then if the src was not hip a 16/44.1 was actually better.

The only reason to go past 44.1 (the redbook format) is in wave restoration.

Mastering

Recording up their and hearing a difference (like 88.1 and 96 and even 192) is only if the equipment you are using, (mics, room, speakers, outboard, wires, etc..) is if that you hear large differences in the hi bit.

I find that if I record at 192K in 32 bit float (turning the hell of of the hard drive) what happens is the down conversion **CAN** (not in my case at this time) cause more problems than if it were kept at a 24/44.1.

It depends on the situation.

Remember, experimenting with HIBIT means you also have another level of translation to look forward to..for many this is not the best thing.

I just can not see an inteligent reason to record at 88.2/96k or even 192k if we are using microphones, outboard gear, mic pres and all the shit with badwidht limited up to 22khz in the best scenarios.
also, the SRC, no matter if it is analog or digital, something goes out...

Yes Alecio, you got that 100% correct.

Thanks Dear. Man, it have just appeared on here a CD of TUPI GUARANI indians to be mastered. It is very very strange!!!!!!!
It was recorded live at their place, lots of peak info at 1250hz. I will send you soon some weird stuff I have been doing, like the HORN BAND projects, Capoeira and now this Indian thing.
Let us see if I will do it
Hgs

Hi Alécio,

Firstly I personally would do away with the O2R, the internal mixing of PT Mix or PT HD is far superior. In fact, not only would I do it, but a few years ago I put my money where my mouth was and actually did just this!

Also, there is an intelligent reason for recording at the higher sample frequencies and then downsampling at the end. Depending on what you are recording and how you are mixing however, there may not be a massive difference but the theory goes like this: One of the big problems with 44.1k is the very steep brickwall filters used to keep everything below 22.05kHz. They create quite a few artifacts. All ADCs have this problem, although the hugely expensive units like the dB Techs, have much better filters than cheaper units. Let's say you are recording 24 tracks, each of those tracks are going to have the same filter artifacts created by your ADC, you are then going to sum those artifacts together in the mixing process. The filters at 88.2k are much gentler and therefore create far fewer artifacts. So in theory at least, you are better to record at 88.2k, mix everything together and then SRC to 44.1k. Thereby only applying those nasty filters the once rather than consecutively across each and every track in your mix. Obviously if you are recording all your tracks directly from a sampler or synth then the filters have already been applied inside those digital boxes and you are not going to notice much of a difference. However, you would probably notice much more of a difference if the material you are working with is recorded live where mics and preamps don't have the harsh 22kHz brickwall filters.

One other piece of advice, if you are going to stick with your O2R or if you are going to link a PT Mix and PT HD together then get yourself a decent master clock generator and workclock slave all your kit to it.

Hope this helps,

Greg

Thanks Greg, Very good info. I think Nika mentioned similar things either.
I was thinking of upgrading to the 02R 96K instead of investing lots of money with a PT HD rig. have you tried the new board friend?
Hugs
Alécio

Hi All!
All this business about sample rates and such IMO are user specific.
For tracking and mixing most pop music 44.1 rate is just fine. Especially if it is demo material. I personally recomend getting the best possible signal flow to tape/hard disk first.

What are your objectives?
Tracking? Mixing? Mastering?
What gear do you currently own?
Mics? Pres? A/D converters?
How much do you have to spend?
What are you unhappy with that makes you feel you need to buy something else?

Robert

My view of this is that there is science and then there is reality. Theory has it that 88.2 will be better especially when processing your audio with plugs (assuming of course that the plugs will work at the higher bit rate- another problem). I say do a duplicate recording- one at 44 and another at 88, add a few plugs that you normally use, dither it down to 16 bits CD and then post the two files and see if anyone here can hear the difference in a blind test. I would bet that 97% of the expert ears here couldn't hear the difference. If you take other people's advice on this issue you will always be wondering about it. Just try it yourself so that you can free your mind to contemplate more important sound issues such as mic placement.

Thanks John!
Nice 2003 to you !!!

ALecio, what about the DM2000 or DM1000?

I can see using these instead of the still questionable PT mixbus.

I've already seen one guy who got fed up and sold his HD rig, after suffering through years of PT's mixing. He upgraded, hoping it would eb better. And discovered it did nothing to change the quailty of his mixes.

BTW, this was someone who is very experienced, and used to mix analog, and was always very happy. Untill he succumbed to the PT's nightmare.

Hi Henchman! In fact I have not been very into this 88/96K HD thing very much.
I am seriously thinking of upgrading my 02R V2 to 02R 96K beforehand. I like consoles, not mouse or virtual controllers...

What bout ya man?
Nice 2003
:)
:p

Has anyone spent any time with the small Sony mixer..DM-XR1??...I think that what it is...I know the Oxford plug ins are the best sounding digital EQ's I have heard..At least on TDM. About twice the price of the 02r 96 but if the EQ's are as good as the Oxford plugs it is worth it.
Robert

Thanks friend. How much for this bundle?

The small Sony Console is around $19,000 US dollars.of course this is negotiable as enything else is....do a search on the web for the Sony mixers and you will find it...as well definately download teh Sony plug ins for Pro Tools if you haven't..you can find them @ http://www.sonyplugins.com ...I think....If you have trouble finding this stuff let me know.
Robert

Thanks friend. Hope they run under OS 9.2.2 and Mix systems.
:)

RobertS2003, Wish I could try the Oxford. I can't afford that high end pro tools TDM stuff. I live in VST land. I've heard good things about the UAD-1 Cambridge EQ however and am anxious to try it out as I love their other plugs. Hmmm... someone here needs to design the Yale and Harvard EQ unit lol.

Alécio, I always enjoy your posts. Wishing you and all here at RO a blessed and happy 2003.

Thanks friend!
Have a nice 2003 !!

Okay guys, I'm a tech head just as many as you may be. I think one of the problems with the whole digital recording phenomenon is the fact that so many musicians, producers, and hobbyists focus too much on technical specs rather than how something really sounds. You can't rely just on response curves and bit rates. There is a lot of gear out there with impressive numbers, but mediocre sound. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Bill Roberts, Fats feel free to chime in at any moment :D

themidiroom

I am extremely happy with my HD mixes. the secret is to make it sound good from beginning to end. With digital you can capture room sound to place an instrument. Tape just couldn't reproduce that kind of detail.

Regarding the O2R or Sony digital consoles:
- A digital console is a set of DSP chips with a built in control surface. For the price of a DM2000 you can buy a complet PT HD rig plus a Pro Control.

- My point is not that one is better than the other, but rather that they are probably more similar than different. why is there any reason to think that the O2R mix math is any better than the PT mix math? They may be, who knows which is better?

- What I like about PT with a pro control is I can design sny mixer I want and have it show up with labels and everything on my control surface. Others probably prefer the familiar layout of a fixed work surface.

- Henchman I am sorry your friend could not get great mixes from his PT systems. There are a lot of reasons why this might be. One of them is not that PT has a crappy mixer. Since there are a lot of great mixes being done by people in this group and on records everywhere being done in PT.

- Analog and digital are different tools. they require different operational engineering skills.

Steve

The problem I see with the older guys that currently bash PT is that they are so addicted to reels of tape, dropouts, labeling, noisy transports and calibrations, expensive hour rate and serious maintenace that a PT system working fine just can not be true and even worser, much younger guys sometimes doing much better than them.

It is so ridiculous to compare PT with an SSL + 2" Otai/studer.
Hey, a PT HD rig plus a controller can be purchased for less than $20,0000 right?
What about the simplest ssl/neve + 2" machine?

That interview at Mix magazine last year about those dudes bashing at digital and so.... I wished I had my money back, a total loss of time and fuck them all.

So how do you really feel Alecio? I'm an old guy. I'm doing digital now. I still like 2" tape but it costs too much to run in my situation. All you ass ho*%s with your PT rigs saw to that. :D (I say that with love) BTW I never experienced a drop out on 2". That's narrow gauge sh*t. And my computer introduces way more noise in my work environment that my 2" machine ever did. I never had to purchase a Silence Case for my MCI JH 24! Any one who has ever worked on 2" analog will tell you in a lot of ways it sounds waaaay better that digital, at any rate. You simply show your ignorance saying things like that. You just don't know. Now the flip side of the coin, DAW /random access is way cool to work with. Automation and pure processing power is soooo cool. I like digital. Always have. I like the sound. Very clean and what you put in is what comes out. No added color, generational loss. Digital is very cool. Point I am making? Both ways work great. They both have their place. But don't make the mistake that digital is young and hip and analog is old and decrepit. I met and old guy once named Leo DeGar Kulka. He owned a place in SF called “Sonic Arts”. Leo mastered my first record. He was so old he personally knew Bing Crosby. He had the first reel to reel machine that was ever used for a radio broadcast in the USA in the mastering room (which by the way was large :D ). The machine once belonged to Bing Crosby. But Leo was also a pioneer in digital. This was in the mid 80's before CDs and this old guy was doing 14 bit digital off a Sony Betamax and an F1 converter. How old were you then Alecio? It has nothing to do with age Alecio my friend.
Lovingly, Fats
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help keep this site alive and growing, please show your support by purchasing one of our caps, studio clocks, T-Shirts etc. Banner ads too!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Kurt I think you misunderstood. I am not criticing age. In fact most of my friends, in and out of the recording scene are over 50. One I will be there too... maybe... :)
Don´t take it that for you, no intention REALLY!!!

What is disgusting are this very long posts saying that PT or other daws suck because can not do this and that. Yes, I shall be "ignorant", because I do not have a 2" machine here to play with, but imagine oing serious crossfades and other stuff with a piece of tape....

ACB,
9/10ths of the "tricks" DAWs can do were pioneered in the days of analog. Guys like Alan Parsons and George Martin were doing loops on analog 2 tracks with mic stands placed as tape guides to take up the extra slack. In those days you had to truly be innovative and imaginative to come up with that stuff. People were flying parts all over the place, wild syncing parts, running tapes backwards and loading up one multitrack and bouncing to another. I can tell you it was a lot more fun and satisfying to do it that way. I challenge anyone to duplicate on DAW the work that the Beatles did on Sergeant Pepper using two four track machines. Dark Side Of The Moon was done using 16 track machines. Those cats were truly thinking outside of the envelope. They faced problems that no one thought there were solutions for and then came up with the answers to solve them. Nowadays all that stuff is a simple keystroke or sample loop CD away. No innovation, no divine moments of inspiration. No talent required. Fats
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help keep this site alive and growing, please show your support by purchasing one of our caps, studio clocks, T-Shirts etc. Banner ads too!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes, that is true

I think we try a lot more creative things because you can do it quickly with a DAW.

I have a lot of fun with specials and fly ins.

Steve

I agree with you Steve. BTW... have you tested PSP stuff? They seem to be pretty cool. Now I am evaluating Vintage Warmer.
:)

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
ACB,
Those cats were truly thinking outside of the envelope. They faced problems that no one thought there were solutions for and then came up with the answers to solve them. Nowadays all that stuff is a simple keystroke or sample loop CD away. No innovation, no divine moments of inspiration. No talent required. Fats

No Disrespect Intended here Fats.

But I want to use my "talent' (Debatable in my case) For creative purposes, And not the creative troubleshooting that I infer you mean above.

Altho it must be said that within the digital world a whole nother hash of trouble exists when one has to ask: Now How DO I do that????

hey Steve
I use 2 adat bridges, one is 24bit and the other one a 20 bit. Do they sound better than 888/20/4´s?

Also, I read somwhere that lite pipe is the protocol that provides more jitter.. is it true?

friend, assuming a 40 track track session ( my maximum setup) with 7 efx returns ( stereo reverbs/ delays).... plus..
Q6 and a nice comp at every channel ( bomb factory, c1, maybe some drums submix with c4 ( dsp hungry like Master X3/5...

how many additional mix cards will i need so i can get rid of my 02R v2?

* I can record my efx returns inside pt or maybe return them with the adat bridges or adats a/d section;

nowadays I have a mix system ( d24 + dsp farm + mix farm) which does well since reverbs/delays are outboard/02r/01v..

I am really tired of the 02r automix

thanks
nice weekend

I have to respond to Kurt’s statement. Bold statement my friend. Like you I have been making records before digital became a main stay in the industry. I agree with you in that the records and staff that you mentioned are awesome. I cant agree with your assessment though that it was the fact that because they had to work harder somehow made it more artful. Were you at those sessions? Fundamentally the two methods of work are identical. I did all of the tape fly’s and the flipping of the tape and.... If I had PT back then I would probably still be married. Everything back then took forever. With the proper background in recording and most importantly, the knowledge of how to write a good song, ideas can be realized so much more expeditiously. I love the sound of tape, I love the sound of tape emulation, it’s all good to me. I think the lack of innovation is due to something much deeper. Perhaps it’s because you can only write “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” once! Perhaps it’s laziness? There are guys out there taking music to new levels as well, I think they would think your statement to be a bit questionable?

Free speech!

Much Respect

I dunno what the hell is happening here. i did not intend to ofense anyone . Bob Clearmountain is my engineer reference, yes he is from the old days of analog school.
I am just crticing all this nostalgia... humans are never satisfied with what they have. and that it is good because we keep the planet going round and round. see. 16 bit digital audio at early 80´s andnow 24bit/superhigh sampling frequencies.
If ya read Bob Ow. books you will see lots of mastering guys saying nice comments about the quality, comparable to good 2' analog. I totally agree with Steve Devino.

about the guy who criticized 9 me or anyone else): you must write to whom you are relating the critics . I am not a child and if you read the post properly, i said sorry. no need for silly attacks. Kurt is my friend.

ACB,
Thanks,... I don't mind people telling me how they feel about something I said.. and I take no offence. It doesn't seem to me that either one of those comments by invisibl or waxmusic were out of line at all. If I want to make a stand and state an opinion, I should be ready to take any replies that anyone has to offer in return ..and I am. In some ways I do agree with what was said, however I still think that doing those things made me feel a lot cooler then, when I had to figure out a way to do it , …. to come up with something that was thinking "outside of the box", rather than accomplishing the same thing with a simple keystroke ... and the idea that someone who would never have come up with those ideas on their own can execute them because all the tricks are right there at their fingertips is a bit disheartening. Kurt

cool!
One (diet pepsi) for the road?