Can my computer handle 96k?

mesaboogie5050

New member
I have always recorded at 48, but I tried 96k for a few tracks and I did like the sound much better. My converters must work better at 96k. I understand it will be down sampled but I'm not asking opinion on that.

I am running a saffire pro 40 interface, outboard compressor, about 7 outboard mic pre amps, I am running A 15' 2013 macbook pro Quad core i7 at 2.7Ghz with 16GB of ram, hooked to a thunderbolt 27 inch monitor. It is the most powerful macbook out. SSD hard drive, fantom HDD's for recording the audio tracks to. I have a TON of hard drives from being in the video business and a ton of TB I am not worried about the space it will take up.

How many tracks do you think I can run, running plug ins on pretty much every track? I track using amplitube and want to reamp later. Running amplitube on a Bus does not work out well so I'm talking about putting amplitube on pretty much every track.

Drums, will be superior drummer.

Vocals through the ART MPA ii mostly, I also have the RNP and a few more pre amps I've collected. The MPA ii seems to be the strongest. I am not connecting it via Adat so I'm not worried about it's converters. I'm connecting it through the saffire pro 40 the old fashioned way.

I am monitoring with zero latency with a software mixer, not through the DAW, so if I had to pull the buffer size down to make this work that would be a non issue.

I am coming here first because I do not want to start a song in 96k and get halfway through it and realize I can't pull it off.
 
In very rough terms, how many tracks with effects can you handle now at 48kHz? Chances are moving to 96kHz will roughly halve that.

However, cynic that I am, get somebody to come in to drive your system with you sitting back just listening and not know when things are 48kHz and when they're 96kHz. I'll bet you a beer (a cheap domestic one :) ) that, without the power of suggestion, you won't hear the difference.
 
How many tracks do you think I can run, running plug ins on pretty much every track?

I have no idea how many tracks you can run.

But it's not too hard to find out.

Create a track, load up 30 seconds of material from somewhere. Add in the plug in, then duplicate the track with all its plug ins and keep doing so until it will no longer run.

I am coming here first because I do not want to start a song in 96k and get halfway through it and realize I can't pull it off.

If you are worried, and don't want to go through a test such as above, then forget about 96. You are not really gaining anything over 48, and 48 will give you better economy and stability.
 
The limiting factor for tracks will not be your CPU or memory, but your effective spindle speed (SSDs don't have spindles, but you get what I mean). I have a similarly-equipped PC laptop. I mix and master in Adobe Audion 3.0 or CS6 (depending on the project). This is, to an extent, an Apple to oranges comparison as the OS and BIOS will affect this, but I can manage over 100 tracks at 96k with some VSTs (I don't have an exact count). I have one project that's 200 tracks that really pushes the limit on this system.
 
You're entirely right that the read/write speed of the HDDs is one of the big limiting factors but I was also worried when I read in the original post that he also wants to use real time VST plugins on pretty much every track. This brings the CPU and memory back into the game too.

I'm also an Audition user and have never managed to find out what my maximum number of tracks is for basic recording a playback...it just keeps going. However, for me at least, this changes rapidly when I add multiple real time effects. Obviously exactly how serious this is depends on what effects I use...some have much less effect (pun intended!) than others but a increasing the sample rate will only increase the CPU/memory overhead for each effect.
 
Yes, I am talking about using plug in's on every track. There is no track I do without multiple plug ins. Guitar, amplitube, bass, amplitube, vocals-acoustic guitar, reverb, compressor, etc
 
It's been said, but you shouldn't be hearing any difference really between 48 and 96. Do a blind test like Bobbsy said (and be prepared to owe him a beer :) )
 
There are too many variables to give blanket statements about the capabilities of any system.
YOU have to experiment and determine what each collection of system parts can do.
 
Yes, I am talking about using plug in's on every track. There is no track I do without multiple plug ins. Guitar, amplitube, bass, amplitube, vocals-acoustic guitar, reverb, compressor, etc
Oy. There's really no way to tell. Different VSTs put different demands on the CPU. However, just how many tracks are you planning on using? If you have, for example, multiple tracks guitar tracks, rather than putting reverb on each track, put all the tracks into a single bus and reverb the bus. It makes no sense to reverb each track individually. Same for vocals.
 
In very rough terms, how many tracks with effects can you handle now at 48kHz? Chances are moving to 96kHz will roughly halve that.

However, cynic that I am, get somebody to come in to drive your system with you sitting back just listening and not know when things are 48kHz and when they're 96kHz. I'll bet you a beer (a cheap domestic one :) ) that, without the power of suggestion, you won't hear the difference.

More isn't necessarily more, and Bobbsy hit the nail on the head. The question shouldn't be IF, it should be WHY. Unless there's a very specific need, there's no reason to work at 96.
 
Back
Top