bit/Khz verses quality

[thegranster]

Hi folks,
I apologize if someone has already asked this.

How important is the sample rate verses quality? For example, I currently run Digidesign's Mbox with Pro tools 6.9 LE which supports up to 24-bit/48Khz. I've seen other products similar (like PreSonus Firepod) which supports 24-bit/96Khz. And of course the big dogs, like Pro tools HD systems support 24-bit/192Khz.

My question is, I understand that "all parts" of recording and mixing play a role in quality (equipment, surroundings, effects), but does the bit/Khz level greatly effect the ending quality?

Is there a significant difference between 24-bit/48khz and 24-bit/96Khz? If so, I'm greatly considering switching from my Mbox & ProTools setup to Firepod and Cubase SX3.

Thanks for any advice you can give on this.

- Grant

 

[Farview]

I did a search and found a crapload of threads that address this.

The bottom line is that everyone can hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. There seem to be a few freaks that can hear a difference between 48k and 96k. There are other people who say that you should record at the sample rate that the final product will be because sample rate conversion does more harm than recording at a slightly lower sample rate.

 

[BigRay]

There are people that can hear differences between 48 and 96 khz.. i can...it is subtle, but it is there. The majority of people ive discussed this with say that it is best to record at the highest sample rate you can so you have more "information" to work with in the mixdown. those same people also said that if the sample rate is a multiple of 44.1 then that would make a difference. They suggested I record at 24/88.2 and Archive at 24/176.4. So on decent speakers a lot of folks can hear a differeence. It isnt as massive as 16 and 24 bit..but it is there.

Hi folks,
I apologize if someone has already asked this.

How important is the sample rate verses quality? For example, I currently run Digidesign's Mbox with Pro tools 6.9 LE which supports up to 24-bit/48Khz. I've seen other products similar (like PreSonus Firepod) which supports 24-bit/96Khz. And of course the big dogs, like Pro tools HD systems support 24-bit/192Khz.

My question is, I understand that "all parts" of recording and mixing play a role in quality (equipment, surroundings, effects), but does the bit/Khz level greatly effect the ending quality?

Is there a significant difference between 24-bit/48khz and 24-bit/96Khz? If so, I'm greatly considering switching from my Mbox & ProTools setup to Firepod and Cubase SX3.

Thanks for any advice you can give on this.

- Grant

 

[Farview]

those same people also said that if the sample rate is a multiple of 44.1 then that would make a difference.

Those people are wrong and don't understand how sample rate conversion works. I wouldn't listen to anything they say.

BTW "Most" people think mp3's sound good, I doubt "most" people could tell the difference between 48k and 96k.

 

[thegranster]

Thanks for the responses guys. So what really seperates Pro tools HD systems and LE systems in terms of quality? If it's not so much the bit/Khz rate, what makes the quality so superior? Heh...to the point where I would pay $7000 for HD card.

Since we are on this topic, are there issues when using equipment (like my Behringer V-AMP Pro) which is 24-bit/96khz but recording at 24-bit/44.1khz?

Acheiving as much in-house quality as possible is my main concern. I guess i'm trying to see what is the big factor in quality - the recording equipment, or the instruments, mic types, etc.

 

[Farview]

Protools HD runs off of DSP cards, not the host computer. It also has more features and can handle more tracks. LE is dependant on the host computers horsepower and is pretty limited when compared to everything an HD system can do.

If you connect the Vamp digitally to your DAW, you will run into problems. If you just use the analog outputs of the Vamp, you will be fine.

 

[thegranster]

Jayrock,
Thanks for the help. I've been reading your other post and you get right to the point.

Just to make sure i'm understanding, there isn't a difference in pro tools hd systems versus pro tools le in terms of quality? With the ability to add more effects and more tracks (more processing power), that's where the better sound comes?

 

[Farview]

That is pretty much true, the interfaces that you are forced to use with HD are different as well.

The other thing that you are overlooking is that the people who spend $20,000 on an HD rig probably know what they are doing. Not so with the M-box. I doubt the quality of the software is any different. If you know what you are doing, you can do great things on a cassette 4-track. If you don't know what you are doing, all the high end gear in the world won't help you.

 

[TuoKaerf]

TDM plug ins for Pro Tools HD run on the cards, and that is a huge advantage for people who do a lot of mixing within Pro Tools. RTAS and HTDM plug-ins still run off of the host computer, but when I'm mixing on a TDM system why bother with those unless I need to.

There are a few hardware advantages also. The converters on a 192 are a lot better than the ones on a LE/M-Powered system, and other odd and end hardware specific items.

A LE system and an HD system can sound exactly the same. Almost the same software, and the only major limitations are track count/plug in processing/ and I/O.