sample rates

[23rdparallel]

I have a digi 002 rack and other goodies and am getting ready to make some music.

I have a few noob question that hopefully will save me starting over later. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to answer a few simple questions since we are going into a session tonight:

What is the best sample rate to take tracks in on if we plan to have it professionaly mastered in analog after mixing? cd is 44.1(?) but should we record at that rate or a higher one?

---

I have 8 extra input channels using Behringer ADA8000 Ultragain Pro 8-Channel A/D D/A Converter, but I also have a mackie 32 channel board.

Which mic pres are better? The boards, or the 002/ultragains? Is there any benefit at all by inserting the board before the 002?

----

When recording acounstic guitar, is there any benefit of using a direct box unit over say plugging right into a pre-amp?

---

I have a drum room that is really naturally reverb drenched. I like the sound the room produces for drums, but is anyone using heavy natural room reverb on recordings these days? I find that I can control the room's reverb by naturally dampening it or removing padding. Does anyone here try to get natural reverbs like this through fast room modification on the fly rather than use effects in a tighter room? Just curious. Who here is working on experiments modeling sounds through the creative use of space?

(sorry for piling posts into one. Time is of the essence...)

Gordon

 

[littledog]

What is the best sample rate to take tracks in on if we plan to have it professionaly mastered in analog after mixing? cd is 44.1(?) but should we record at that rate or a higher one?

I do all my recording at 44.1 - you might get marginally better results using 96k, but you will have much bigger files, ability to record less tracks, and less DSP for any plug-ins you might want to use. I find it is not worth it, but you shouldn't take my word for it. Take some time and do a test recording at both sample rates, and see if it makes a difference to YOU, as only you can be the judge.

---

I have 8 extra input channels using Behringer ADA8000 Ultragain Pro 8-Channel A/D D/A Converter, but I also have a mackie 32 channel board.

Which mic pres are better? The boards, or the 002/ultragains? Is there any benefit at all by inserting the board before the 002?

Some people will say the Mackie has better pres, but I don't think there is that much difference. I would just go for the shortest signal path. The main advantage to inserting a board before the DAW is to create an easy way to set up a number of headphone mixes.

----

When recording acounstic guitar, is there any benefit of using a direct box unit over say plugging right into a pre-amp?

Are you talking about a microphone on a guitar, or plugging in an acoustic guitar pickup? If it is a mic, it has to go into a mic preamp. If it is the pickup, you can use a DI box, or if you are close enough, can plug it into the DI built into many mic pres. Or even the line level input on a mixer. But different guitar pickups have differing amounts of gain, and what works fine for one guitar may not work for another.

But the real answer is don't use a pick-up from an acoustic on a recording. Or at least don't use it as the main source of your sound. Even a cheap microphone will sound better than the most expensive pickup. Pick-ups are ok for live sound because they are less susceptible to feedback.
---

I have a drum room that is really naturally reverb drenched. I like the sound the room produces for drums, but is anyone using heavy natural room reverb on recordings these days? I find that I can control the room's reverb by naturally dampening it or removing padding. Does anyone here try to get natural reverbs like this through fast room modification on the fly rather than use effects in a tighter room? Just curious. Who here is working on experiments modeling sounds through the creative use of space?

You are very fortunate. Those of us who aren't doing what you described are those of us who can't, because we don't have that option.

 

[23rdparallel]

I do all my recording at 44.1 - you might get marginally better results using 96k, but you will have much bigger files, ability to record less tracks, and less DSP for any plug-ins you might want to use. I find it is not worth it, but you shouldn't take my word for it. Take some time and do a test recording at both sample rates, and see if it makes a difference to YOU, as only you can be the judge.

That makes sense.

I read something about 88.* or something like that on another site to get best results when converting back to analog for mastering.

I think im using 44.1 at the moment (will check in the next hour), but you are probably right about processor time as I have been bogged down for over a year with plug-ins already messing around with the system. Today I bought another gb of ram to bring it up to 2 gb in hopes to solve that plug-in issue. I am not sure how much ram pro tools le can actually utilize yet. I am sure though that 2gb is under the limit though.

Some people will say the Mackie has better pres, but I don't think there is that much difference. I would just go for the shortest signal path. The main advantage to inserting a board before the DAW is to create an easy way to set up a number of headphone mixes.

I happen to believe in ockam's razor applied to recording. I have been having this argument with a friend over this very issue for 2 years now. I feel that the shortest path is the best path considering that the pres in these units are at least decent. I think that headphone mixes are a distraction for my particular goals so I discount that out of hand. He wants to put our expensive outboard compressor on the singal through the board, but id rather do it later. For some reason it just seems logical to send a clean natural signal and mess with it in the mix. But what do I know? My experience is limited to paying people who know this stuff. ;-)

Are you talking about a microphone on a guitar, or plugging in an acoustic guitar pickup?

I have been getting good test results using the pickup through a di and through a cheap behrenger pre. I see no audible difference where one makes me unhappy at this point.

If it is a mic, it has to go into a mic preamp. If it is the pickup, you can use a DI box, or if you are close enough, can plug it into the DI built into many mic pres. Or even the line level input on a mixer. But different guitar pickups have differing amounts of gain, and what works fine for one guitar may not work for another.

Good point. Mine seems to be ok through the di and a pickup, or through a real preamp and the pickup. Maybe I will mic it too and setup a second channel next time and see what happens.

But the real answer is don't use a pick-up from an acoustic on a recording. Or at least don't use it as the main source of your sound. Even a cheap microphone will sound better than the most expensive pickup. Pick-ups are ok for live sound because they are less susceptible to feedback.

I have been playing around with using an acoustic guitar filtered through plug in amps to get a semi distorted electric sound and am very happy in that regard using a pickup. Maybe on that particular application it helps rather than hinders. Again, I cannot be sure.

You studio rats must have extreme patience. ;-) If anyone is around Tucson who knows what they are doing in depth and needs a studio to trade training for time on, hit me up.

You are very fortunate. Those of us who aren't doing what you described are those of us who can't, because we don't have that option.

So I guess that is a good path to follow. I just happen (by good fortune) to have a guest house setup now to use exclusively for recording 24/7. I am in heaven. It actually has AC and heat and a bathroom! What more could I desire? It is the first time we did not have to setup drums in the same room as the system. ;-) The ceilings are high and the natural reverb is pretty good to me at least.

Thank you for replying.

My name is Gordon. I am new here today. I hope to network extensively and get involved here as the forum seems very good.

I recently quit my band of 6 years and am putting together a life long dream of mine where I do it all... Play everything and record everything. My wife gets to sing since I am a better at the other stuff. So anyway, I am having a blast and looking forward to making some good art...

I am primarily a guitarist with 20 years experience touring and playing with various bands, and now am becoming a drummer so that I can do my own material without assistance and making good progress with that.

My studio is a small home studio that I have been working with for about 2 years now. I am getting ready to become serious with it since I quit my band, and (I think) it is now good enough to do decent work. We shall see.

Gordon

 

[littledog]

I read something about 88.* or something like that on another site to get best results when converting back to analog for mastering.

Gordon

You are remembering something a little different. When mixing in the digital domain, it is recommended by many people that when using higher sample rates, to choose a rate that is an even multiple of your ultimate sample resolution. So if you are eventually going to mix down to a CD, which is 44.1k, then you would choose 88.2 or 176.4 as opposed to 96 or 192. (I should point out that this principle, while often quoted as gospel around here, is not universally agreed on by experts. Bob Ludwig, however, ascribes to this theory, and if it is good enough for him, then...)

But since you are not mixing digitally, this doesn't apply. If you make an analog mix, in theory you might as well use the highest sampling rate available, since it is going to be converted to analog anyway. But this still assumes that you can hear enough of a difference to make the larger file sizes and other drawbacks worthwhile.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

What is the best sample rate to take tracks in on if we plan to have it professionaly mastered in analog after mixing?

I'm still exhausted from the last two threads talking about this in just the last few days. Check those out first. Bottom line, stick to 44.1/24.

Which mic pres are better?

Unless the pres on the Berrie really, really, suck, give yourself the opportunity to use either one. You'll find yourself wanting the variety. Depending upon what sound your looking for on any given song and what kind of mic your talking about, there will probably be times where you'll find the Mackie to me more appropriate, and other times where you'll find the Berrie to be better for that need.

Try both preamps with each kind of microphone you have for your different instruments and vocals and check out the different flavors of sound you wind up with and see what works and what doesn't.

Additionally, the preamp choice will help you from getting similar sound buildup on your mixes from using the same mics and gear . One example is from another thread in this forum asking about using the same voice for both lead an harmony vocals. One of the better answers was that switching mics and/or preamps was a good way of tonally seperating lead and backup vocal when it's the same vocalist.

When recording acounstic guitar, is there any benefit of using a direct box unit over say plugging right into a pre-amp?

If you're looking for clean and natural-sounding acoustic guitar, you might be better advised to ditch the pickup and live mic the guitar instead.

If you simply like the pickup sound, or cannot live mic for some other logistical reason, then go into a preamp only if you want to use that preamp to modify the sound of the guitar somehow (e.g. saturating the tubes, using the EQ, etc.) But unless upi're looking for some special effect sounds from your acoustic, keep it simple and mkeep the signal chain short and clean.

I like the sound the room produces for drums, but is anyone using heavy natural room reverb on recordings these days?

Who cares? What other people may or may not do "these days" - in other words, whatever the current lemming trend is these days - is irrelevant. Don't let what everybody else does tell you how to design the sound of your song. Let your song tell you how to desgin it. If that room sound is what the song calls for (i.e. if that sound really enhances the mood or theme of the song or otherwise just "sounds right' for the arrangement), then use it. OTOH, if it is a bit too thick for an otherwise lighter song (in tone or arrangement) then move to a deader room.

Content is king. The content of the song should inspire you as to how to arrange, record and mix the song, and this should be individually devined for each song. Sure you can get ideas, and maybe even inspiration from others, that fine. But don't try to "sound like someone else". Not only does that stifle creativity, but more often than not it just doesn't work very well (unless you're a tribute band .)

HTH,

G.

 

[23rdparallel]

All good advice.

Its funny how people can debate in circles for years only to come to the conlusion that anything goes!

Gordon

 

[Reggie]

In order to go through your ADA8000, you will be stuck at either 44.1K or 48K. I would vote just sticking to 44.1 in this case.
The better preamps are the ones that sound better to you. You may not be able to tell much difference between the ones you listed (they are all "average" or below).
If you have a drum room with a good sound, then by all means do your best to capture the sound with room mics. You will have a hard time faking a good room sound with reverb plugins later.

I've enjoyed networking and interfacing with you today. Have a pleasant tomorrow. Now move swiftly; time is wasting.