Is there any way to run 16in's @ 24bit 96k on Pro tools LE?

An audio community like no other.

Moderators: rick, Mark Bassett

Is there any way to run 16in's @ 24bit 96k on Pro tools LE?

Postby Nick Karasavvidis » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:50 pm

I know the M-Audio 1814 will do 12 channels but that's the closest I've seen!!!
This surely has to be possible?!?!?!? without going to a HD system??!?!?!
Nick Karasavvidis
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:32 am

Postby Chris H » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:01 pm

Not meaning to be sarcastic at all, etc but give the staff a call where you purchased it and they should be familliar with the possabilities and limitations of your purchase. I have always been happy with where i get my new gear and they even reaserch tricky questions like Logic/ OSX and multiple device support (ha ha!)!! A simmilar issue to yours as i want to run an RME Fireface with a MOTU 896.
User avatar
Chris H
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 11:20 am
Location: Off The Planet

Re: Is there any way to run 16in's @ 24bit 96k on Pro tools

Postby Linear » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:10 pm

Nick Karasavvidis wrote:I know the M-Audio 1814 will do 12 channels but that's the closest I've seen!!!
This surely has to be possible?!?!?!? without going to a HD system??!?!?!


i'm sure that it is technically possible however that's the digidesign scam. give away alsihad 'free' to suck people in. then sell a discounted alsihad 'LE' so they buy the proprietry alsihad hardware but don't let them record more than 8 tracks at once (what a joke). get lots of people doing this, so it becomes kind-of a defacto standard. then, once they're used to the interface sell them a $20k alsihad 'HD' rig and convince everyone that it is the future of recording.

for ongoing revenue streams to keep investors happy with a 20% return, upgrade software and hardware often but don't make it backwards compatible. also hold off on proven and available technology, so people feel the need to upgrade every couple of years.

whatever.
Linear
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Sydney

Postby zedsoundz » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:39 pm

I think that with a digi 001 you are able to run the iterface and attach a optical cable to an ad/da box (adat, be!@#$%^& ada8000) for sixteen tracks of simultaneous ins.... I'm unsure of whether the same is true with a digi 002.

You could always just buy a 16 track 1" tape machine and feel good about yourself though:) all you need to edit is a razorblade

Z
zedsoundz
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Postby Peter Knight » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:47 pm

Lets see. the 001 can take 16 channels, but only up to 48kHz. the 002 takes 96kHz (right?) but I'm not sure if you can fit 8 channels of 24/96 down a lightpipe.

Do you absolutely need to run at 96kHz?
Peter Knight
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: Perth

Postby Martin » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:21 pm

yeah no 96k on the 002 either for more than 8 channels...

you might get away with 10 channels if you use the spdif but i've never tried it personally...

i think also trying to cram that much data down a firewire 400 interface might not be feasable, also writing that much data to disk etc etc

24/48 has worked fine for me on 16 channels simultaniously

i use 24/96 for smaller jobs
Martin
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 2:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby Kurt » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:35 am

You may need to check out one of the dedicated HDD recorders, Fostex, Mackie, Ta@#$% etc to get this kind of functionality. Though the sheer volume of the resultant files would be unwieldy to say the least.
User avatar
Kurt
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canberra

Postby chris p » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:42 am

Hey Martin

The vanilla firewire mk I (firewire 400) is 400 Mbits/sec. 24 bits wordsize at 96kHz is about 2.3 Mbits/sec. So even allowing for overheads and other bus issues, you can get a lot of 24/96 (like about 50-60 bidirectional channels) down a firewire cable!

The PCI bus is even faster, PROVIDED its free of other interrupts (not a prob for us Mac users, with a dedicated f/wire bus!)

However, little of it is buffered, and my experience is that its the software that lets the team down.

FWIW.
User avatar
chris p
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 6:15 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Postby Martin » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:06 pm

thanks chris, i assumed from watching the disk performance meters etc get to the red side of the scale when tracking so many things in LE that it was close to its limit

seems not!
Martin
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 2:31 am
Location: Sydney

Postby JustinS » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:56 pm

chris p wrote:Hey Martin

The vanilla firewire mk I (firewire 400) is 400 Mbits/sec. 24 bits wordsize at 96kHz is about 2.3 Mbits/sec. So even allowing for overheads and other bus issues, you can get a lot of 24/96 (like about 50-60 bidirectional channels) down a firewire cable!.


Not if you're storing audio on your firewire drive and recording with your firewire interface...
JustinS
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby chris p » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:09 am

Just to clarify, my comment was on the speed of the firewire bus. Even using the same bus, you'd have no problems in writing to a F/W drive while recording 16 channels at 24/96 so far as bus speed goes.

The drive may well have issues and be red lining - I think most software does verification of its disk writes (immediately reading back what has just been written), and if that's going on, you're effectively doubling your disk activity and tripling your data channel count over the bus (one from the A/D, one to write to disk and one to read from disk, per channel). That's actually good, because it helps to ensure the integrity of the sound file, but its why recording to a f/w drive (instead of an internal ATA drive) can make the system grind. And while all this is going on, the software is rendering it all nicely for us with real time control, etc etc.

DAW recording certainly has lots of pitfalls for the unwary. Its a mix of converters, buses, software and hardware that all has to work together. The trick is to identify the actual bottleneck and fix that, whether its software limitations , converters, computer bus controller, whatever.
Its no wonder that so many (nods to Rick "what's a plugin?" O'Neill, Linear, mdfu and the others) think its not worth it and prefer tape.
User avatar
chris p
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 6:15 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW

Postby mfdu » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:58 am

i m now running an extra 2 ch. of ad/da via lightpipe into my 002 at 24/96, giving me the max 10 ch available at 24/96.
using lightpipe s/pdif disables the coax s/pdif.

if you want more input ch's, you gotta run at a maximum 24/48 .

no if's buts or maybes - thats the way the hardware works.

chris.
User avatar
mfdu
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
 
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Spotswood, VIC

Postby smash » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:23 pm

Why do you want to run at 24/96?

Generally speaking - the shift to 96kHz is one of the last things that should be considered in the audio path.

Good Pre's, Good Room, Good Mics, Good Monitoring, Good Clock,
Good Conversion, - in roughly that order, will all have a bigger effect on the overall "sound" of your recording than shifting to 96Khz will.

Don't forget the importance of actual professional mastering either.

A great 24/44.1 A/D will sound better than an average 24/96 A/D

Also if you plan on mixing "in the box" don't forget the derogitory effect that
sample rate conversion will have on the sound - it's got to go to 44.1.eventually.
smash
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:49 am
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Postby Kris » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:44 pm

96k is a hoax.

Can't remember who told me but you actually have to run 2 discreet 48k AES feeds to get true 96k. Anything else is a compromise.
Kris
 

Postby SJRS » Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:25 pm

I think that was the early version of 96K called dual wire. I think you get the same quality with one now.
SJRS
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:10 pm
Location: Kallangur

Postby JustinS » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:14 am

smash wrote:it's got to go to 44.1.eventually.


I've always wondered why people who go for high sample rates don't go for 88.2 - if you have to do samplerate conversion down to 44.1, that's a lot less maths and interpolation for a samplerate converter to do...

Justin.
JustinS
Registered User
Registered User
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: Sydney

Postby wez » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:45 am

[quote="JustinS"][quote="smash"]it's got to go to 44.1.eventually.[/quote]

I've always wondered why people who go for high sample rates don't go for 88.2 - if you have to do samplerate conversion down to 44.1, that's a lot less maths and interpolation for a samplerate converter to do...

Justin.[/quote]

this is a very old argument which is pretty much unfounded. if you look around you'll find plenty of discussion on this topic. the bottom line is - unless the SRC is broken, then it doesn't actually matter whether it is an integer conversion or not. everything gets divided by a common factor. sure it's a lot of maths but in these days of 48 bit (or higher) double-precision processing, it should not be an issue.
User avatar
wez
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Slightly to the left.

Postby wez » Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:46 am

[quote="JustinS"][quote="smash"]it's got to go to 44.1.eventually.[/quote]

I've always wondered why people who go for high sample rates don't go for 88.2 - if you have to do samplerate conversion down to 44.1, that's a lot less maths and interpolation for a samplerate converter to do...

Justin.[/quote]

this is a very old argument which is pretty much unfounded. if you look around you'll find plenty of discussion on this topic. the bottom line is - unless the SRC is broken, then it doesn't actually matter whether it is an integer conversion or not. everything gets divided by a common factor. sure it's a lot of maths but in these days of 48 bit (or higher) double-precision processing, it should not be an issue.
User avatar
wez
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Slightly to the left.


Return to The Turtlerock Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


cron