I think you said it best, it depends on the music. I mix a lot of pop/rnb, and most of the tracks are synths and vocals. I mix through 888/24's(but i also own a Cranesong Hedd 192 and a Mytek 8-channel D/A). I don't mix in Pro Tools and I think that is also important(you stated SSL and Euphonix) which will change the sounds of the tracks somewhat. Also when I mix to a digital format(Masterlink CD24), I only mix nowadays at 96K(and I can definitely hear a difference). If you do lot of live tracking, then yeah the converters make a huge difference. When I track vocals(or anything else) I only track through my Crane song Hedd, and it comes together better in the mix. But when people give me their files to mix, its a different story.

Originally posted by Drumz:
I've seen ProTools used in our C room for years without anyone bringing in any converters or anything. Most just go from SSL through some vintage comps or 2" right into Protools w/ (3) 888/24. They keep it on PT and mix w/ direct outs to the SSL to 1/2". Sounds great

What does it sound like when they don't first go thru vintage comps and 2"?

I find that with better converters, you don't have to "fix it" as much. You get more of what you put into PT in the first place.

can anyone hear 96khz?

Yes, and it still sounds lifeless compared to my analog machines.
Hell, I can hear the difference between my CD players (Sony & Tascam.) If you can't, stick to playing bass and let those who can use their ears to create great recordings.
BTW turn off your computer monitor: mix with no distractions. :w:

Cap'n Anal... Too bad you can't cut HD's with a razor. You salty old sea dog, hehe :p

Which converters you use, and how you're clocking your system can make a huge difference when it comes to the clarity, depth, dimension, and emotion of a recording.

The fact that big selling records have been made on inferior equipment is more a testament to the greatness of the artist/songwriter/etc. than anything else.

"...can anyone hear 96khz?
Yes, and it still sounds lifeless compared to my analog machines.
Hell, I can hear the difference between my CD players (Sony & Tascam.) If you can't, stick to playing bass and let those who can use their ears to create great recordings.
BTW turn off your computer monitor: mix with no distractions.
--------------------
We are professionals, do NOT try this at home.

Oh well..... I'm not a big friend of this abstract and HD- and Processor-consuming sample rates... but NO professional would sign the quoted post... really not...

However, did you know that you can enhance your existing 24Bit 48 KHz. ProTools to 88,8 and 96 KHz. ???

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.apogeedi…"]Click this link for Info...[/]="http://www.apogeedi…"]Click this link for Info...[/]

Of course it should be 88,2 KHz. in my previous post.... :roll:

Numbers.......

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.mp3.com/…"]MIKE[/]="http://www.mp3.com/…"]MIKE[/]

"The fact that big selling records have been made on inferior equipment is more a testament to the greatness of the artist/songwriter/etc. than anything else."

Some of those records suck, but they sell because of who the artists is or isn't. The fact remains that there isn't a consumer that cares about converters. Mix being equal. After running into ProTools through vintage comps or recording to 2" first, then dumping into ProTools and mixing direct outs into an SSL or Neve to 1/2" then after mastering can anyone honestly tell that you used the stock ProTools converters? If a person just listens to the radio they definately can't tell. If they hear the song loud in a club or bar they definately cannot tell. Where does it end. As soon as 96khz comes folks will start clamoring for 192khz, 384khz, 768khz, etc.

"And knew what the article tells you in the first paragraph, that you can't use any of the PT features for which you would want to record in PT in the first place, so what's the point? The native software alternatives will edit 24/96 to your heart's content (or so long as the cpu will bear it), so it seems like a pretty non-pro tool.

Bear"

Well..... I did not say "all you need is shareware"... I thought, that maybe SOME people don't know about the Apogee sample-rate-splitter.

Not everybody knows everything and not everybody makes every fancy software experiment on running systems, which have to function over the day.

You forgot to say in your prolific post, that you can't record with your existing 48KHz. Interface at 96 KHz. Now you have the point: with the Apogee splitter you CAN record at 96 KHz. How cool is the native 96 KHz. editing "as long as your CPU can handle it", if you can't feed the system with 96 KHz. recording signals.....

How cool, to have this (cheap) alternative to somehow work with 96 KHz. in your environment, against buying completely new systems...

I still master at 44,1 KHz. for CD and I think the sound is still OK.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.mp3.com/…"]MIKE[/]="http://www.mp3.com/…"]MIKE[/]

IMO, the sound of the converter is more important than sampling freq. I think if you have a great A/D D/A, 24 bit 44.1 sounds great. A not so good converter will still be inferior at 96K. If you have massive storage space and cpu, sure go 24/96, but somewhere down the line it will have to be 44.1 to cut the CD. One thing I have figured out is the sound of the converters can make a huge difference but things being equal, word length is more important than sampling freq. In other words, I'd rather have Prisms or Myteks on ProTools 24, than stock Digi converters(assuming the "new" 888's or whatever they are gonna call em, are on a par with current ones) on a 96k system.

Good converters do make a difference. I'm mixing with an older Mytek 18-bit A/D at 44.1 and the difference between that and the converters on the DAT machine and CDR are pretty obvious.