Jump to content

24/192 Support


Recommended Posts

I am looking at the Apogee Symphony 64 hardware and am in the planning stages of a "dream" studio and would very much like to use Logic for the DAW software of choice.

 

I have noticed that Apple currently supports 24/96 tracking, but would like to do 24/192 if at all possible as I would like to keep it at 24/192 even to the final encoding stage of the process since I would like to be using TrueHD encoding for the finished product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool.. Well, I'll be probably staying in the 192 realm from start to finish. I "may" convert to an AAC audio file, but I am not concerned with that at this time. I have to nail down 192 be able to handle concerts, and/or long studio sessions. Classical, classical indian and jazz musicians tend to play for long periods of time and I want to keep the sonic integrity. I am hoping not to have to put in Pro Tools, if at all possible. Logic seems to get getting closer on some things and surpassing them at others. TDM plug ins is next. Otherwise, i'll probably be dealing with hardware inserts instead. Maybe the next version or two of Logic might cure that problem. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the Specs:

 

http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/logicpro/specs.html

 

The new 3 hour limitation is very cool. If you try to use .wav files al 192 they will crap out at about 20 min due to the 4 GB limit. BUT with the new .caf format your able to record up to 13 and a half hours of 44.1 kHz.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but does it matter on the number of tracks? What is the actual file size limitation with .caf?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, you are VERY helpful. Thank you!

 

I just read a little on Apple's site. They say that theoretically, there is no file size limitation. But, I know there always is.. :-)

 

Well, I now have to check with Dolby to make sure they can see a caf file and encode it using Dolby's encoding software to encode it to the various formats I need to use. Hopefully there isn't a problem on that end... :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Apple gets Snow Leopard out and Logic gets a full 64 upgrade (Duh), then maybe there won't be any file size limitations at that point? Am I reaching on this one? If that is the case, then it is just a matter of how many Promise RAID systems one can attach, press Record and let the musicians play. :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Excuse my ignorance, but does it matter on the number of tracks? What is the actual file size limitation with .caf?

 

The number of tracks wont matter for the format but it will definitely put some strain on your disk.

 

Another thing.

If you are using your equipment for live recording you will have more redundancy. Wav or Aiff only wrights data into the header when the recording has finished. Caf will have access to the header at any time so even if your recording equipment crashes in the middle of a take your files will be intact until this point wile the other formats will get corrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oneness,

 

Just curious as to why you want to use such a high sampling rate.

 

-=sKi=-

 

1. I plan on tracking live instruments and musicians through a analog console rather than sampled instruments and loops through a control surface.

2. The end result I want to use TrueHD 5.1 at 192, at it will bring more accurate audio that is more of a reference type recording. TrueHD is the format of choice for BluRay disks and that market is growing as more players and home theater systems can decode BluRay and TrueHD. If I track, mix, edit, master at 192 and keep it at 192 for the finished product, then it is a higher quality reference recording.

3. I am not planning on using plug-ins at all or VERY sparingly, but more of blending old school recording with digital. I am trying to blend the two together that makes sense to me. I plan on using high quality reference monitors throughout the recording process to hear the subtle nuances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

192 kHz PCM is absolutely nothing in terms of clarity, dynamics, and bandwidth when compared to DSD or even DXD. I would highly recommend that if you have a listen. I had the chance to A/B the formats at the AES show and I must say the difference was startling. IMO, the difference between 192 kHz PCM and DXD (the easily editable transcoded sister format to DSD) is greater than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz in terms of the above characteristics. Some even refer to DSD as digilog. You should seriously check it out. Between that demo and Dan Lavry's White Paper disputing the accuracy of sampling at 192 kHz, I just couldn't see the point. I love 88.2 kHz and so do your converters.

 

Here's Dan Lavry's paper. It can get pretty intense, but IMO it is an absolutely necessary read in our day and time.

Sampling_Theory.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

192 kHz PCM is absolutely nothing in terms of clarity, dynamics, and bandwidth when compared to DSD or even DXD. I would highly recommend that if you have a listen. I had the chance to A/B the formats at the AES show and I must say the difference was startling. IMO, the difference between 192 kHz PCM and DXD (the easily editable transcoded sister format to DSD) is greater than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz in terms of the above characteristics. Some even refer to DSD as digilog. You should seriously check it out. Between that demo and Dan Lavry's White Paper disputing the accuracy of sampling at 192 kHz, I just couldn't see the point. I love 88.2 kHz and so do your converters.

 

Here's Dan Lavry's paper. It can get pretty intense, but IMO it is an absolutely necessary read in our day and time.

 

I'll give a read. Thanks! When you listened to it, what playback system were they using? converters, speakers, amps, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those top dollar Sennheiser headphones were used for the A/B comparisons of the solo piano tracks, which were playing off HDD through Digital Audio Denmark converters. I also got to listen to a choral arrangement on a surround system of ATC powered monitors, playing off HDD through converters designed by DAD for pyramix. This 5.1 setup produced the truest sound I have ever heard. All of this was recorded through DAD converters in DSD (or in 192 kHz PCM for the comparisons)

 

While all of this sounds great, it is incredibly expensive and I would suggest a lot of market research regarding the marketability of such hi quality recordings. In the days of iPods and laptop speakers, unless you are independently wealthy or tremendously well known for your work on such reference recordings it may prove difficult to profit from such an outfit.

 

I really don't mean to discourage you. I LOVE ultra fidelity, but once I realized the price you have to pay and the diminishing returns inherent with such quality, I reluctantly backed off.

 

Once you begin down the ultra pure road, I am afraid it will consume you. Once you have the DAW and converters, you still need mics, pres, power conditioners, reference signal and power cables, monitors, and mixing facilities that maintain your ultra clean signal. It's just too much, and Lavry has me convinced that 192 kHz is bunk!

 

My only recourse was to try 88.2 kHz and I have to say that I have been happier with my mixes since I did. It might sound crazy, but thats my 2¢.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 192 content that Lavry presented, what equipment was used to create/present the 192 content? Not all converters sound the same running at the same rate. At this point, I am just preparing to figure out what the costs involved in doing 192, but I don't have to track, master or encode at 192, but I can certainly have the equipment, just like everyone else has the equipment and then I'll decide later. I may be using different playback equipment where I will be able to tell a difference, or not. Changes are being made in playback equipment. I would rather be prepared than not prepared. None of the equipment has been purchased yet, I am still in investigation mode. But if something changes, I can always change the plan... Make sense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly. I am not saying you should not buy the symphony system. I am working on obtaining one myself. I am more warning you about the marketability of the audiophile/reference market, and the diminishing profit margins associated with it. It is great to be able to accommodate the sample rate if necessary, but if I were you I wouldn't worry so much about what sample rate you are using so long as you are satisfied with the result. If you like the sound of 192 kHz the best, then by all means use it, but let your ears make that decision. As far as a DAW, LP8 will work just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those top dollar Sennheiser headphones were used for the A/B comparisons of the solo piano tracks, which were playing off HDD through Digital Audio Denmark converters. I also got to listen to a choral arrangement on a surround system of ATC powered monitors, playing off HDD through converters designed by DAD for pyramix. This 5.1 setup produced the truest sound I have ever heard. All of this was recorded through DAD converters in DSD (or in 192 kHz PCM for the comparisons)

 

While all of this sounds great, it is incredibly expensive and I would suggest a lot of market research regarding the marketability of such hi quality recordings. In the days of iPods and laptop speakers, unless you are independently wealthy or tremendously well known for your work on such reference recordings it may prove difficult to profit from such an outfit.

 

I really don't mean to discourage you. I LOVE ultra fidelity, but once I realized the price you have to pay and the diminishing returns inherent with such quality, I reluctantly backed off.

 

Once you begin down the ultra pure road, I am afraid it will consume you. Once you have the DAW and converters, you still need mics, pres, power conditioners, reference signal and power cables, monitors, and mixing facilities that maintain your ultra clean signal. It's just too much, and Lavry has me convinced that 192 kHz is bunk!

 

My only recourse was to try 88.2 kHz and I have to say that I have been happier with my mixes since I did. It might sound crazy, but thats my 2¢.

 

Well, I don't listen to content with headphones as a rule of thumb.

 

I know what you are saying, there is a level that gets ridiculous.. I mean, how many people can afford a Goldmund Home Theater pushing 13,000 watts through 32 channels with a room that has a 2 ton ceiling? I understand that concept. Don't worry, I am not going to get a Goldmund Reference Theater for $1 Mil plus.

 

I am just gearing up for what I feel is a good reference for doing either 96 or 192 and the cost of doing either, really isn't that much. What's the cost difference between Apogee converters that do 96 vs. 192? ZERO. The playback system I plan on getting will do both 96 and 192, so there isn't any difference in cost either. It may be a heck of lot better than what most everyone else is currently using, which may explain a lot with the content on the market.

 

The only thing I see different is the amount of hard drive space. If I hear a difference and I feel it will make a difference and it can be marketed so that it is worth doing, then great. Most of the stuff on the market is far from reference quality due to the compression, eq, etc.

 

It's all about the content and how it is recorded, mixed, and mastered. The encoding is just the last step. If I create it in 96 and it sounds the same as 192, then I may decide to do 96. But, I haven't put the system together and I will be using playback systems to determine if there is a noticeable difference before content is put on the market. All I see at this point is hard drive space. That's cheap if you think about it. But I first have to create some content with what I am considering, but I am not going to go too extreme. Believe me, I am not going to spend $200,000 on a stereo speaker system, $100,000 on power amps, $75,000 on cabling for a stereo system either. OK? I do have some common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly. I am not saying you should not buy the symphony system. I am working on obtaining one myself. I am more warning you about the marketability of the audiophile/reference market, and the diminishing profit margins associated with it. It is great to be able to accommodate the sample rate if necessary, but if I were you I wouldn't worry so much about what sample rate you are using so long as you are satisfied with the result. If you like the sound of 192 kHz the best, then by all means use it, but let your ears make that decision. As far as a DAW, LP8 will work just fine.

 

I know LP8 will work, I love what Apple is doing. I decided not too long ago that Pro Tools may not be the right way, even though everyone is saying it is "the industry standard". It's expensive too. I think that the direction Apple is going is ultimately going to be better for my direction and I don't think I'll miss Pro Tools. The thing is that I haven't heard any tests either way between 96/192, it is just that everyone says the maximum rate is "192" and I have to just make sure everything that I am considering will work. What I mean by reference is by having something that isn't compressed to death using plug-ins and uses high quality analog gear when appropriate to have a nice natural sound more like the way things used to be done, just with digital technology in certain areas. I can hear the difference in a sampled piano and a real one, a plug-in of a compressor vs. a real one. That, I will be paying attention to detail. But I need to make sure that I can have a reliable tracking system that will ensure my data is intact at the highest bit rate that the converters will do, etc. Just to ensure peace of mind. There are plenty of people that have made comments that the Apogee converters sound better than the Pro Tools converters at the same bit rate. The two are pretty much industry standard. There are some people that think that the Radar system is also slightly better, but I am not convinced that will be my direction.

 

My end goal is to put out quality content, recorded/mixed/mastered well, using common sense approach and let it be heard on TrueHD and possibly other formats which are worthwhile. And also having a lot of fun doing it, without spending more than is reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure the resulting mp3 will sound much better on everyone's iPod...

 

Seriously, if you want to spend your money on drive space and computer headroom, then there's nothing to stop you working at 192kHz. However, IME (which is fair), there are many other factors that are going to have much more of an impact on the quality of your work than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What players/receivers Companies support this format?

The idea would be to work to a recorder that you could deliver to the ME for playback into his chain. He will capture to whatever format you specify. You would be a little ahead of the curve to try to market DSD recordings.

 

If you're really concerned about fidelity, you could go direct to stereo on this format. However, many guys also use these decks to capture off a desk from a mix of multitrack recordings.

 

The Korg MR-1000 is popular, and pretty cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What players/receivers Companies support this format?

The idea would be to work to a recorder that you could deliver to the ME for playback into his chain. He will capture to whatever format you specify. You would be a little ahead of the curve to try to market DSD recordings.

 

If you're really concerned about fidelity, you could go direct to stereo on this format. However, many guys also use these decks to capture off a desk from a mix of multitrack recordings.

 

The Korg MR-1000 is popular, and pretty cheap.

 

marcel72,

 

I think if you kept the responses to the original questions and concerns, you'll keep things relevant. This is not relevant to the original posting.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marcel72,

 

I think if you kept the responses to the original questions and concerns, you'll keep things relevant. This is not relevant to the original posting.

marcel's point is germane however, in that you really need to be having a discussion with the mastering engineer who will be authoring the final delivery format of the material. Let their advice be your guide.

 

As it's already been mentioned here, there are certainly caveats to working at such a high sample rate for production purposes. You may be limiting your flexibility and your access to processing that could be vital to the project. Just because something says it works at 192kHz, doesn't necessarily mean it works "well" at 192kHz. Get some professional advice from your ME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marcel72,

 

I think if you kept the responses to the original questions and concerns, you'll keep things relevant. This is not relevant to the original posting.

marcel's point is germane however, in that you really need to be having a discussion with the mastering engineer who will be authoring the final delivery format of the material. Let their advice be your guide.

 

As it's already been mentioned here, there are certainly caveats to working at such a high sample rate for production purposes. You may be limiting your flexibility and your access to processing that could be vital to the project. Just because something says it works at 192kHz, doesn't necessarily mean it works "well" at 192kHz. Get some professional advice from your ME.

 

IL understand. I am not finished in the process of doing my research and there is equipment that is not out on the market yet that I plan on using as part of the process, so trust me. No final decisions have been made on whether I track in 96 or 192. That's not that big of my concern. THere are some things I know that you don't, that I can't discuss. OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most definitely. Common sense is with you. The ability to do 192 kHz is never a bad thing, I guess I just question its practicality and to a lesser extent its legitimacy. If this is gonna be your standard sample rate, just buy good pres, mics, and a good analog board, that way your analog gear makes use of the extended bandwidth gained by using such high sampling frequencies. Sounds like you have the right idea and you plan on doing these things already.

 

I guess the only thing left to point out is the increasing cpu load required to run at such sample frequencies, especially when inserting plugins. You can always node, provided you have an extra macpro laying around.

 

Oh and about the headphones: for comparisons they can be quite revealing. A pair of headphones instantly create a very consistent reference environment. Things are easily a/bd through headphones, and as long as the headphones themselves are quality, the reproduced sound can be extremely accurate. Not that I would ever mix or even listen for enjoyment through headphones (unless on the go). However, for a/b comparisons at a booth at a trade show, what else will make the differences between 2 sources so very apparent in such an inconsistent physical environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...