WOW recording in 96 KHz sucks

C

chadsxe

New member
WOW...

I recorded something in 96 for the first time and I could not believe how much it taxes your CPU. Is this normal, does everyone else experience the same thing. My computer is a 3.2 hyper-threaded with a gig of ram. Everything is stripped down and all that is on it is my Audio software and audio files (on different drive). Anyways I could not believe how much harder my computer had to work. I was jumping in to the 70 percent cpu usage range a lot. I don't even think it is worth it at the price.

Just checking to see if this is normal :eek:
 
Well...isn't it working twice as hard as it would at 48k, and even more than that if you usually work in 44.1k.

It has to process twice as much info in the same amount of time.
 
Working in 96khz for anything more than an acoustic song really sucks ass. I tried recording a really good hard rock band at 96 and I couldn't get much past 15 tracks if I wanted to use plugins.
 
chadsxe said:
WOW...

I recorded something in 96 for the first time and I could not believe how much it taxes your CPU. Is this normal, does everyone else experience the same thing. My computer is a 3.2 hyper-threaded with a gig of ram. Everything is stripped down and all that is on it is my Audio software and audio files (on different drive). Anyways I could not believe how much harder my computer had to work. I was jumping in to the 70 percent cpu usage range a lot. I don't even think it is worth it at the price.

Just checking to see if this is normal :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, it's normal....

And in my opinion, I wouldn't bother - it's not worth the extra requirement in resources... not to mention that if someone can't get their shit to sound good at 24/44.1, then going to 24/96 is not going to help them sound any better!
 
I tried it a while back - I don't have the resources yet - 2.6GHz P4. You get bogged down pretty quick during mixing or mastering. Even though it seems obvious freezing tracks doesn't quite relieve the pain...Till I get more power to do it I just use a few critical plugs that upsample while they do their thing...
 
I plan on not recording any further in 24/96.......But now I am left with 8 tracks of drums that are sitting in a 96 project......this might sound stupid but honestly I have no clue if you can export a 96 file to a lower rate....is this possible?.....I am guessing it is but I just wanted to check all avenues first.....
 
In a way, 24/96 or even 24/196 is pretty much Digidesign's way of trying to obsolete native processing. As already mentioned, its totally normal to fry your CPU working with the higher resolutions. It's also pretty much agreed on by many that high qulaity convertors and preamps, as well as DACs and clocks, still yield superior results at 24/44.1 and 24/48 than high sample rates and lesser converters, etc.

In short, put your money into convertors, pres and clocks first, then deal with higher sample rates if you *really* need them.

FWIW, many studio with HD systems are also running those tracks out to a console and mixing with outboard equipment or the effects in a digital console- pretty much any modern computer with a few fast droves can handle that. It essentially becomes a digital tape deck with wicked editting tools.

Kylen- (howdy, neighbor!)- Good idea. Archiving is a good use for 24/96. If you save it at the highest resolution availible then you can always crunch it down to something else. That only really applies if you are mixing analog and reconverting, though- no use up-sampling an in-the-box mix unless you're burning it to DVD-A or something like that.

Take care,
Chris
 
I did an A/B, recording the same stuff at 192, 96, and 44.1 about a year ago (Neve mic pres, digi 192 converter), and there was a noticable difference in sound - we had non-engineers/non-musicans listen to 44.1 CDs of the material. Mostly in the reverb tail of the drums and the tail of the cymabls...you could actually "hear" it instead of feel it. Everything just sounded more "live" and realistic. There wasn't as much of a difference between 96 and 192, though...if that's any "good" news.
 
MrWarren said:
I record at 96, or 192, depending on what I'm recording.
Haven't had a single problem with computer lag.
Click to expand...
That doesn't help these guys at all, without also describing your computer rig..... :cool:
 
What are you recording warren, a couple acoustic guitars and some vocals? I know guys with real beefy pc's that have problems with 96khz, but they are also attempting to record full rock bands. I can record at 96khz with no problem as long as i don't need anything more than a master track eq and compressor plug much beyond that and my Imac is a paper weight.
 
I am using pro-tools LE 6.9.2/002R and am running a Mac Dual G5 with dual 1G frontside busses....Only 1 Gb Ram though.....I have .46 Tb of dual drive space so I figure why not record @96kHz/24....Before my Mac though I stuck with 44.1 or 48......Maybe if you mod your cp a bit it would be no problem........On the other hand I really can tell much (if any) difference, it has to bounce to 16/44.1 anyway!
 
96khz is basically pointless. unless you've got AMAZING sounding gear (or gear that will allow your AMAZING tones to come through), all the extra res will only get you higher resolution crap. :D
 
i think it really depends on what you're trying to achieve... if you want the grittier sound og 44.1/24 and it works, us it. for a rock band without a lot of dynamics or with a bunch of noise, 44.1/24 is probably fine. if you're recording anything you think may benefit from extra clarity, then 96/24 is the way to go. i started out with 96/24 but like most epople realized it was taxing my system, so i went to 48/24 which seemed to be a decent choice. now with PE4.0.3 i can use 96/24 again and i think it matters even for rock music. i find the definition of the instruments make mixing easier because now they pretty much sound like i expected them to, rather than trying to add some high end or other stuff that got lost on the lower sampling rates...

i posted a pair of mp3 - one with 44.1/24 and one with 96/24. complete with background noises :-) nothing fancy just a nylon string guitar through an AT3035 pointed at 12th fret from about 18 inches. into an omnistudio-delta/66 card - SONAR PE 4.0.3 1 track, no eq or anything else, then exported into 44.1/24 or 96/24 WAV. then cut to MP3 via WinLAME using 128kbs and the Q0 (highest quality) setting.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=216881
(first 2 songs, ignore the other stuff :-)

besides the poor performance, noise, finger squeaks, and horrible vocal :-) the idea is the sonic qualities between the two, even @ MP3 quality... it does matter in terms of quality - and many instruments together it still (IMHO) helps to have as high a quality as you can use...
 
gullfo said:
into an omnistudio-delta/66 card - SONAR PE 4.0.3 1 track, no eq or anything else, then exported into 44.1/24 or 96/24 WAV. then cut to MP3 via WinLAME using 128kbs and the Q0 (highest quality) setting.
Click to expand...

i can't listen, i'm at work. what sample/bit rate are you recording at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top