Recording in HD

[sbcgroup2]

I'm in the process of assembling a bunch o' high end gear and when it gets to the point where I'm gonna build my studio room(s) (in a temporary set up now), I need to assemble a DAW.

Currently, for the past 5 years or so I have been using Logic Platinum with Waves plugins, a MOTU 1296 interface, Glyph firewire drives and a Windows PC. I used to record at 48kHz but now I do everything at 44.1. The reasoning was that since I was bouncing down to 44.1 anyways, that it was just wasting disk space at anything higher.

But now some of the systems I am researching like Pro Tools HD 192kHz (which Metallica and other pros use in the studio), etc. are touting the higher sampling stuff. I know a bunch of people who are respected on this board are saying the higher rates are BS....but why are the pros using it? Just to have higher quality masters so that 20 years down the road when a new format evolves they can have a better transfer?

I've invested a bunch of money in higher end gear...I just don't want to waste it by not using it to it's full potential by only recording at 44.1khz.

Will the levels be louder if you record at 192 when finally bounced down?

If none of this matters...super! I'll just keep using my same unit!! Or upgrade and have psycho capabilities w/o having to invest in outboard processing gear, etc.

Thanks!

 

[Minion]

With 192khz recording you do get better recordings with more dynamic range because you are recording more samples because of the higher sample rate but many poeple feel that any quality gain in recording at 192khz is lost when resampleing down to 44.1khz which makes recording at 192khz a waste of disk space, I don"t know how true this is but I"m sure there is some validity to it.....

The way I see it though is you might as well record at the best quality you can for your masters because in the future we won"t all be stuck with the crappy 16bit 44.1khz format, You can even allready put 96khz on to DVD audio so it won"t be long till we are all useing 96/192khz in the next generation audio media....

Also when mixing down right now we have to convert from 24bit to 16bit for CD so the audio is allready going through a conversion process so might as well have the audio in the best quality before conversion so you can get the best quality after conversion so going to 192khz might not be a bad idea.....

I personally can not hear much differance between 44.1 and 192 but I"m sure the differance is there.....


Cheers

 

[bennychico11]

With 192khz recording you do get better recordings with more dynamic range because you are recording more samples

dynamic range has to do with the bit depth, not the sample rate.


you run into more problems than benefits when recording higher than your target rate.
I'm going to bet most "pros" (which you probably can consider most people on this board, including myself...since we get paid for the work we do), don't record at those high sample rates. Just because we use the gear that can do it, doesn't mean we are. I for one only use 48kHz/24 bit...and that's the highest I ever plan on going.

Read over this for Dan Lavry's test on higher sample rates. Lots of math/science...so skip to the end where he talks about his conclusions.


Stick with what you've got now. Remember, crap in=crap out...doesn't matter what sample rate you're running at. If you can't get it right at 44.1kHz, a unit that boasts 192kHz isn't going to do anything different for you.

But there's lots of information on this board about this, so do a search
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=188330

 

[sbcgroup2]

Re:

I for one only use 48kHz/24 bit...and that's the highest I ever plan on going.

Cool...I'll check out those links. BTW, why are you using 48kHz instead of the 44.1?

I'm happy with my results I get with 44.1 and the better gear I add to my collection, the more differences I hear (some more than others).

BTW..do you hear any sonic differences between recording with ProTools HD and ProTools LE, etc.? I know...there is probably a discussion on this...will check....

Later-

sbc

 

[bennychico11]

BTW, why are you using 48kHz instead of the 44.1?

yes, I record 48kHz. It's recommended by many engineers just to record at your destination sample rate and 24 bit. My destination is 48kHz for almost all the stuff I do (audio for video). Also, 48kHz corrects some things slightly better than 44.1kHz does (ie. the slight attenuation of high frequencies as shown by mshilarious in the page I linked).

I'm happy with my results I get with 44.1 and the better gear I add to my collection, the more differences I hear (some more than others)

that's what you should be shootin' for. Not a higher sample rate, but gear that can give you a better sound at the sample rate you're already at. In other words better converters, better preamps, better effects units, better mics...and heaven forbid better musicians

BTW..do you hear any sonic differences between recording with ProTools HD and ProTools LE, etc.? I know...there is probably a discussion on this...will check....

HD is going to have better converters and (to a lot of ears) better summing.
It's all subjective really. The standard HD I/Os aren't going to come with any preamps, so you'll have to rely on third party ones that you buy (or the Digi Pre)

Also note that Pro Tools HD is very expensive and I only recommend buying it if you have the clientele to warrant such a purpose.