Is there really so much of a difference between those sample rates?
Comments
I'm recording at 48k/16bits, and mixdown em to 44.1k. I got the
I'm recording at 48k/16bits, and mixdown em to 44.1k. I got the Emu1212m and it got the best converters in the world, hence i think there fairly good, lol. So since I somehow cant record at 96k i do it at 48k. But is it worth it? I mean will the quality be better if i record at 48 and convert to 44.1, or if I record at 44.1k in the 1st place?
48k definitely sounds better to me when it's at 48k, but when yo
48k definitely sounds better to me when it's at 48k, but when you convert sample rate to 44.1k, which you must for CD, you get truncation errors that change the harmonic content of the signal. Then ya gotta mess with EQ to try to recreate what you heard at 48k. For me, less work and better end results to start and end in 44.1k .
On our ProTools HD|3 with a 192 i/o we still record everything a
On our ProTools HD|3 with a 192 i/o we still record everything at 44.1. It seems really funny that converters go up so high and most people stick the the highest sample rate of the current medium. As soon as CD's go higher, We'll go higher.
The other option that we have tried that sounds much better, is using a sample rate in multiples of 44.1, ie 88.2 or 176.4. That converts down very clean, but the end result hasn't proven itself to be any better than staying 44.1 the whole way, you just end up eating up your DSP/CPU power faster. =)
The one reason its great to do the highest possible sample rate is if your bouncing to analog tape, thats a really great sounding workflow.
-Kevin
The reason most A/D converters have a 48k setting is simply for
The reason most A/D converters have a 48k setting is simply for the film world. lol. it is not 2 get a "little tiny bit more quality" over 44.1k, cause in all honesty I believe you gain nothing over the 7k difference, except more complications when u forget its all at 48k ahaha. ;)
Graham
I had the same experience as many of you. I recorded at 48K thin
I had the same experience as many of you. I recorded at 48K thinking I was getting better resolution plus I came up from using ADAT's, but after converting to 44.1, my mixes sounded different.
I started recording at 44.1 24 bit and it works just fine. The biggest problem today is that even recordings done at 44.1K end up being 128K MP3's.. Why bother with much higher sample rates?
Hypothetically, yes. The internal recording algorithms are goin
Hypothetically, yes. The internal recording algorithms are going to be virtually identical. The internal mix engines will handle the maths correctly etc for any plugins used. Plugins are usually oversampled anyway for better resolution even in hardware versions. The type of music one records can often affect the impression of what level sample rate is important too. IMHO of course. Plus in answer to the MP3 argument, I record audio and produce final format products to the best of MY ability and not the listening potential of the end user. I've already determined that most end users can't actually hear.
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.tonedeaf…"]What Mahler Symphony Did You Hear | TONE DEAF[/]="http://www.tonedeaf…"]What Mahler Symphony Did You Hear | TONE DEAF[/]
2TheJackAttack, post: 379317 wrote: Of course, Chris' system is
2
TheJackAttack, post: 379317 wrote: Of course, Chris' system is much higher end than mine. But Marines make do with what they have.
John, you know I wasn't snubbing you or anyone here over who's is better? There are better systems than mine for certain. I'm trying to cut through all G.A.S. and misinformation. It could be we are all being lead to believe the HDX is going to sound better when it may not matter anymore. Follow? Or, why am I investing in converters that go beyond the logical. Lavry is at 96k and I'm thinking thats good enough.
So my question was trying to understand if everyone would feel the same way on this thread if they used someone else's rig. Would you still feel 88.2 was necessary with my system or would 44.1 be comparable to your 88.2? Would I change to 196 if I was using Pro Tools all the time. Follow?
I never go past 96 so why am I investing in converters that are 192 when the majority are ending up with 44.1? The obvious answer is, better converters must sound better at lower sample rates, yes?
But, does the playback engine have anything thing to do with this from DAW to DAW?
I didn't think you were snubbing me or anyone else Chris. I kin
I didn't think you were snubbing me or anyone else Chris. I kind of wanted to point out that given a basic level of quality the "feeling" and results should be pretty equal.
As to whether a set of converters that is the best in class at 192k out shines all others still at 96k, I couldn't say. I also have RME but not the latest. I don't feel 192k/176.4k would be significant enough improvement in clarity resolution for mixing to make it worth my while to use the disk space. If I were in your control room maybe I would feel different but I'm kind of with Remy. I'm waiting for DSD to become a reality rather than a parallel frontage road sort of path.
To say it perhaps in more plain fashion, I mix and record at 88.
To say it perhaps in more plain fashion, I mix and record at 88.2k because of the audible characteristics that create an increased clarity for me to make critical decisions regarding eq/compression/etc. Can I do it at 44.1k? Yes. I feel it is easier for me aurally at 88.2k. Of course if I get the mic placement and levels correct, there isn't much for me to do unlike you rock guys.
I use 44.1 most of the time. My daughter has been using 96 a lo
I use 44.1 most of the time. My daughter has been using 96 a lot at school, so I've been trying that out. There's no question that you can hear the difference at the mix level. However, the differences (if any) in the final dithered product are so small that I don't feel it would be worth it if there are any stability or storage problems. (I've had a strange problem switching between 44.1 and 96 session. Some glitch between the Fireface UFX and PT9 that I don't understand. Easy to fix, but I'd like to find out what is behind it. Maybe I'll post on it later.) At any rate, I'm going to try the next project in 96 and see what I think.
I'm curious, Bob. When you go up in value, (44.2 to 88.2 or 96)
I'm curious, Bob. When you go up in value, (44.2 to 88.2 or 96) do have to turn off the UFX to get it to catch again at the higher sample rate? But going from a high rate to lower it switches no problem?
This is slightly off topic but I just saw this:
http://www.blacklionaudio.com/content.php?p=46
Within Audition, when I change sample rate from within the RME d
Within Audition, when I change sample rate from within the RME driver gui, I have to go to audio hardware setup and press the control panel button. It instantly changes to the latest latency values/sample rate etc. I honestly don't remember if I start a new session in a new setting if it changes the driver setting. I always just change the sample rate in the driver itself.
Of course, Bob is on a Mac and they have become mysterious to me, lol.
As to the Blacklion mods......The UFX has the Micstacy preamps a
As to the Blacklion mods......The UFX has the Micstacy preamps and converters which are the same converters in the ADI-8. These are RME's flagship components so how much is there to be improved without moving to DSD? Chris, you have the converters, how much improvement do you think could be wrung from them? Are the Lavry so superior that an RME mod brings them closer?
I generally concede modifying many pieces of gear-even good gear-can produce improvements due to mass production techniques. This could even be true of the UFX I suppose, but I am a tad skeptical.
In a recent topic I had over at Magix forum, they say there is a
In a recent topic I had over at Magix forum, they say there is a difference in playback engines. I tend to agree because I hear a difference.
Whether we need to be concerned about that is up to the individual but when making big decisions, I look at what the other guys are using more and more. I'm always questioning things, including myself. I've been looking at life from a Parallax view sinse I was 17. It can drive a guy nuts at times but it keeps my ego from getting in the way.
The Lavry is more open and has smoother highs and tigher bottom for certain. Its just sounds better to me. Its subtle but its what I hear. If I use a Lavry AD , my mics sound silkier :) I hate to say it but I hear that. The ADI-8 qs sound better than the FF800, its about the same difference as the Lavry's are to the ADI-8 QS. Knowing this is kind of like a light bulb going off. If I used better converters, everything would have silkier sibilance and tighter bass. When you get that, you use less eq or use it more precisely. you mix faster and have a happier life. I've been recording at 88.2 for a long time. Things seem to run better at 44.1 though. I'm not sure I hear all that much difference once its online. The next few months I'm going back to 44.1. I'm with the DSD too. Until them, I'm not moving past what I have for converters.
A lot of people are happy at 44.1.
audiokid, post: 379342 wrote: I'm curious, Bob. When you go up
audiokid, post: 379342 wrote: I'm curious, Bob. When you go up in value, (44.2 to 88.2 or 96) do have to turn off the UFX to get it to catch again at the higher sample rate? But going from a high rate to lower it switches no problem?
This is slightly off topic but I just saw this:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.blacklio…"]Black Lion Audio | RME UFX Modification[/]="http://www.blacklio…"]Black Lion Audio | RME UFX Modification[/]
Well, I have not seen anywhere in the manual that tells me to turn the UFX off. I exit PT, switch to the higher rate using the GUI. Opening a new session at the higher rate works fine. I get an error and the speed drops down to the old speed if I try to work on an existing session. If I open a new session and close it I can then open an old session. Perhaps turning off the UFX will let me open up an old session directly. I don't see any place in the manual telling me to do this, but it would not be the first time I've missed something in that manual. There's no redundancy. If you miss an important point you won't find it anywhere else. I've read it cover to cover making lots of marginal notes, but I have no confidence that I didn't miss something. (It's also translated from German - perhaps not be native English speakers - but that often makes a manual better. Could be worse. Could be translated by Germans who were trained to speak English in the UK. Two foreign languages in one manual.) I'll try just turning off and on.
I had not seen the BL mods. Not going to void my warranty to do it, but I'm not surprised. As good as the Micstacy converters are, there's always something better. I've made such a big step up from the Digi 002R that I'm not itching to improve.
John - My DAW is on a PC. I'll try going to the control panel and changing the setting there and see if that does the trick as well.
(My non-audio computer is a mac.)
Something similar to me is happening. They don't tell you to tur
Something similar to me is happening. They don't tell you to turn it off in the manual but it works for my problem. I reset the clock by going through ADAT, 44.1,48, WCK and back to AES.
I think my card either has a problem or the converters having too low a carrier voltage. I'm told it could be the card's output stage, the cable, or the QS inputs stage. But I've switched cables so its not the cable. I'm left with having to send it all back to be tested. I could live with it but for $6000 I shouldn't have this problem.
by design as in and design flaw? In my situation, if I go up in
by design as in and design flaw?
In my situation, if I go up in value ( 44.1 to 88.2) my clock starts hissing on track 4,8. If I go the other way around, from 88.2 to 44.1, it never does this. My converters should find the Clock Rate and lock in automatically, and they do but they are slow to do this going up in value. Even when they lock in, I will get a high pitched clock hiss screaming through tracks 4 and 8. To fix it, I have break AES by turning off the converter, or running through the various clock settings or pull a cable in and out. I can repeat this problem over and over. Both converters will do it so its not unique to one. The top card ( 1 to 8) is where it originates, 9 to 16 it never happens.
Thoughts?
TheJackAttack, post: 379354 wrote: As to the Blacklion mods.....
TheJackAttack, post: 379354 wrote: As to the Blacklion mods......The UFX has the Micstacy preamps and converters which are the same converters in the ADI-8.
I'm told by RME that the converters in the UFX are similar, though not identical to the AD8-8 QS' What ever that means ... duh . Keep in mind that the ADI-8 and the ADI-8 QS are two completely different builds.
I contacted RME and asked them to clarify the differences between the UFX and the ADI-8 QS. I invested over $6000 in my converters and interface so it would be good to know how they compare:
This is the second answer I got:
The ADI8-QS does sound better technically but when you get into high quality AD/DA devices you tend to suffer from diminishing returns.
The differences in audible sound quality is very tough for some one even under even the best conditions to detect with just their ears reliably.
When there is a noticeable difference it almost always ends up being level mis-matching, pan law, clocking. In some cases some "high -end" AD/DA intentionally color or alter the sound. Usually in some attempt to emulate the effect processing nature of a analog tape or a tube driven circuit.
Thankfully RME does not do this as part of it's design. :)RME designs their product to be as transparent and uncolored as possible at their given price ranges. You are paying for a different feature set of the ADI8-QS over the UFX.
and regarding the preamps between the Micstacy and the UFX:
Micstasy and UFX use the same preamp design and technology (chips), but include a different AD converter design. The Micstasy provides spectacular SNR specifications and a gain range of 85 dB. The UFX on the other hand provides the new advanced parallel conversion on the preamp inputs to match the quality of the preamps
.
The higher the sample rate, the more accurate the rendition of t
The higher the sample rate, the more accurate the rendition of the original analog waveform you'll get, but then it comes down to how good your sample rate conversion is, since the end product will be at 44.1k. I used to track at 48k, but I decided to try something at 44.1k from the start, and I'm actually happier with the end result with my current setup. I was definitely hearing an overall sonic change from 24 bit @48k after rendering down to 16 bit @44.1k . It introduced a lot more high mids. Things are translating much better when I track at 44.1k . "Your results may vary".