PA9 and sample rate

C

chesterfield

New member
I'm thinking of upgrading to PA9 and/or Sonar from GT2. I have a Gina 24 card, which supports 24bit/ 96k. Cakewalk allows for 24 to 16 bit conversion for CD burning, but has no provision for sample rate conversion. So what do I do? Record everything at 44.1k? Record at 48k or 96k and transfer to cassete tape? Use another program for downsampling? Which one?
 
For optimum results . . .

We want to record at 96k but we will need rossetta or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Someone tell me I'm wrong. . .

Please.

I don't feel like forkin over a grand right now.
 
There are programs which convert sample rate - like Cool Edit Pro and Sound Forge, probably others.

As an aside, I would do everything I could do avoid a D/A-A/D conversion via tape, unless you wanted the tape "warmth". While I am not knowledgeable about a lot of digital recording... I have read a lot of times on this and other boards about the utility of 96K recording. Most people think that the higher the bit rate the better and easier the recording and mixing. However, sample rates do eat up more hard drive space and may not offer you the same advantages. Some others recommend recording at 44.1khz and 24 bit, if you are ultimately going to burn a CD. Just passing on what I have read for your consideration. Perhaps a search of that topic would yield some good results or someone who knows more about that might comment.
 
Actually, the comment about recording to tape was supposed to followed by the "wink" icon. There was a long discussion a while ago about sample rate, and someone (Skippy? sorry if that's incorrect) made several good arguments for recording at the highest sample rate ( and bit depth) possible and converting just prior to CD burning. Soundforge XP has a sample rate comverter. PA9 says " supports 3rd party editing ". So it seems that would work? If anyone has any experience with this I would greatly appreciate it.
 
I'm sure you could argue for highest quality sound recording. The arguments I have heard against that are
1) It take up a lot more hard disk space
2) converting from 24 to 16 bit is not too hard, but converting from 96 to 44.1, can induce nasty artifacts, unless you have a really great convert. I am not sure CEP or SF qualify as "really great" converters, as that is not their main function in life.

Again, I'd be interested in what some others have to say on the topics of saving in 96K and/or are CEP or SF really good ad converting to 44.1?
 
ah i love revelations

re
just chilling out here in the archives and especially with the sample rate conversion posts thinking how will we get this from 24 96 to 16 44.1 in pro audio 9.03. (lights a cowboy killer) so i'm thinking i need to get the dvd burner sooner than anticiapated and for tonight get all stereo tracks split into l r groups. then
send each one processed at 24 96 to my sequencer machine which is loaded with a sb card (mad laughter, tears, etc albeit no offense). now at this point we will send each track back to the digital recording system and record them in at 24 44.1. and then
dither to 16 and all is... well useable and then it flashes - why not just send everything out of the converters and right back in but at 24 44.1, then dither (saving the original project for the dvd of course) all without ever leaving the digital recording system.
just thought i'd relay that to ya - oh and i would like to leave a bit of stats so you'll know a bit more about me. until next time happy and pseudo twilight zonish recording.

mixer: mackie 1604 vlz pro
converters: delta 1010
sequencer: 350 pIII + sibelius 1.04
synth: roland xp 30
recording computer:
motherboard: abit 133bx
processor: piii 1ghz
dynamic memory: 512 8ns sdram
drives: 3 40gb udma 100 maxtors on raid mode 0
cd r/rw: plextor 12 10 32a
op sys: win98
multitracking software: cakewalk pro audio 9.03

couldn't have built it in part without the people here, thanks.
if anyone has questions in the line of this equipment always
feel free to let me know
 
rjt,

CEP will not convert sample rates of this magnitude without the proper stand - alone H-ware . . .

But if 1 1 Meta 2 2 2 is loading 96K samples into a sb - I guess anything is possible . . .


Is there a doctor in the house ? ? ?
 
how did meta get the sb to 24 96?

sorry - with the sb i could only record 16 44.1 but at that
point it was a better than nothing option. fortunately
i was able to take the 24 96 work out of the delta 1010
and right back in but at 24 44.1 saving myself the horror
of the initial solution. here i've restricted many things to
24 44.1. *waiting patiently for dvd burner price drops, i take
my leave*

happy recording all,
jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top