24/96 vs. 24/48

D

Deepdwella

New member
Questions is for the experts,

Im running Mac os 10.5.8 on a Dual 2 GHz power p.c. G5 with 6 gb DDR. Using the Project mix as a mixer & sound card. Using pro tools 7.3 m-power & logic 8 studio.

I track some vocals at another studio using pro tools 8.3 recording bit rate at 96/24, At home I'm running pro tools 7.3 m-power but recently started using logic 8 studio. I want to mix session in logic 8 studio. Ive open session up in pro tools 7.3. Now im ready to exported each track separate. About 18 mono tracks and 3 stereo tracks, Clean with no plug in's or automation added yet.
I know my computer could handle all 21 tracks imported into logic 8 studio at 24/96 but when i start to add plug in's my computer gets a little stressed (CPU). My questions is can i export tracks from pro tools 7.3 at maybe 24/48 instead of 24/96 and still come out with a good mix when i import into Logic 8 studio.


2nd Question is for the future if I know I can't mix at 24/96(until I get a better mac) but i can record in 24/96, is it better to maybe go to a lower bit rate when tracking vocals maybe like 24/88 or 24/48 and doing mix at that bit rate or can I benefit from tracking vocals at 24/96 then for the mix convert to a low bit rate to relieve CPU stress.

Personally I like to track my Vocals in pro tools, been using pro tools since 6.1 but logic 8 seems to be able to work a little bit better for mixing vs. pro tools from my experience so far.

Definitely open to any suggestions
 
very few people (except in their imagination) can detect difference between 24/48 & 24/96 (all other parts of signal path remaining the same)

the acoustic environment in which you mix is a far more important (by probably an order of magnitude) variable the whether you retain 96 khz sampling rate. In fact the state of your sinuses on any given day is probably a far more significant variable then whether you choose to mix with a sampling rate greater then 44.1
 
The higher the sample rate the more calculations the Plugins have to do per second. Runing at 48k vs 96k cuts the calculation load in the VSTs in half, so you should see a reduction in CPU load running at lower rates and potentially less chance of running into problems playing back the mix.

As stated above, there is little chance that you will hear a discernable difference between the two sample rates. 48k will enable you to reporduce frequencies up to around 24k which is 4k above what is considered the upper limit of normal human hearing. The only thing that might be an issue is if the plugins introduce aliasing in audible ranges at lower sample rates. Possible because they have to use a sharper filter than at high sampe rates, where there is more space to hide aliasing above the range of human hearing.
Most decent plugins shouldn't produce noticable aliasing even at 44.1k sample rates under most circumstances however.

If you have the source material try it and see if you can tell the difference
 
There shouldn't be any difference in the audible range between 48k and 96k. Some converters/interfaces sound better at different sample rates, but that doesn't have anything to do with the sample rate. The difference comes from the design of that specific piece of equipment.

Higher sample rates double the storage space, double the resources needed to process it and cut your track count and plugin count in half. The only benefit to using them is the ability to record frequencies that most people can't hear, the mics won't pick up and the playback system won't reproduce.

All of the best sounding CD's in your collection are at 44.1k/16 bit. If you can't make a great sounding recording at 44.1k/16 bit, a higher sample rate isn't going to help you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top