B
BAMA
New member
just was wondering does the sound quality change?
bennychico11
...
mix down to whatever source you're going to.
If you're going to CD, you'll have to use 44.1kHz. Most other things should work with 48kHz just fine. I like to play it safe and keep it at 44.1kHz...unless I'm doing video work (or someone requests 48kHz).
My sessions all start at 48kHz, though.
If you're going to CD, you'll have to use 44.1kHz. Most other things should work with 48kHz just fine. I like to play it safe and keep it at 44.1kHz...unless I'm doing video work (or someone requests 48kHz).
My sessions all start at 48kHz, though.
T
TCBDavis
New member
What Benny said is good advice, however, depending on what Pro Tools system you are working on I would start each session at the highest resolution possible. For instance, if you are working on PT HD, start at 96kHz, and bounce to 44.1 or 48.
What works out really well when bouncing is to bounce straight to a CD using a CD-R machine, that way you don't get digital rounding errors when bouncing your file to a .wav.
Hope this helps!
What works out really well when bouncing is to bounce straight to a CD using a CD-R machine, that way you don't get digital rounding errors when bouncing your file to a .wav.
Hope this helps!
mattr
Resident moody teenager
EDIT: nvm 
P
pezking
New member
Why not do 96kHz in LE? Or indeed 192kHz in HD?
Obviously you need appropriate hardware.
bennychico11
...
The extra hard drive space and system resources required for this, outweigh any benefits of a higher sample rate...IMO. It's just not worth it. You can make just a great of mix at 48kHz as you can at 192kHz.
T
TCBDavis
New member
I'm sorry about that, I got my systems messed up. In my opinion you should start at the best quality possible, the end benefits will work out in your favor at the end
philbagg
Just Killing Time
Isn't there a theory about sample rate conversion?
Like, if you're destination is 44.1 and you want to track and mix at a higher
sample rate, you should use 88.2? (88.2 divided by 2 = 44.1). Same applies
for 96kHz and 48kHz?
I'm not sure
Like, if you're destination is 44.1 and you want to track and mix at a higher
sample rate, you should use 88.2? (88.2 divided by 2 = 44.1). Same applies
for 96kHz and 48kHz?
I'm not sure
bennychico11
...
Isn't there a theory about sample rate conversion?
Like, if you're destination is 44.1 and you want to track and mix at a higher
sample rate, you should use 88.2? (88.2 divided by 2 = 44.1). Same applies
for 96kHz and 48kHz?
I'm not sure
that's just a myth...or was true for very few devices/programs back in the day. The math is much more complex whenever down sampling from any number. If you just threw away every other sample you'd have things to deal with like twice the extra upper-harmonic content captured in the 88200 sampled wave form and changes in amplitude that wouldn't correctly be represented. A new curve has to be interpolated from the average of the samples.
Using higher sample rates increases your chances of introducing errors or other artifacts in your audio. The cleanest way is to just record at your end-source sample rate so that there is no conversions needed.