Pro Tools 8

by **musikwerks** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:56 am

44.1 for me too, unless it's tv and then it's 48. I tried 96 once and really didn't like it. I don't know why but it just didn't sit well with me.

by **TimS** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:00 am

Simon B wrote:chris lord-alge still records at 44.1

Mark Rochelle said on here a long time ago why he thought 44.1 was better... something along the lines of too much number crunching, when doing a sample rate conversion I dont know if he still feels that way,

Yes, I remember that thread too Simon..
I still use 44.1 - might try 48 at some stage in the future, but if its good enough for CLA then its plenty good enough for me..
CLA has engineered alot of stuff I listen to. I dig him..
Listen to Matchbook by Ian Moss - I played it back through my studio monitors the other day and it sounded super.. Mix was just great - even flipping to mono it still sounded great :-)

by **jkhuri44** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:02 pm

yeah, it might be if i was recording at 44.1....but that's for peasants! ahahahahha

lol, that was a joke...my internet humour sucks...or, it didnt before now.

who's CLA ?? does that guy have a name?? :P

by **TimS** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Chris Lord-Alge
Simon mentioned it in his previous post!

by **David W** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:53 pm

I think the reason CLA uses 16bit /44K is because the Sony 3348 multitrack he uses/ preffers does not do 88/96 or whatever else. It's more the sound of the machine than the sample rate. His brother I think has a 24 bit version.

So if your tracking / mixing at 44K cos CLA does it you may be barking up the wrong tree.

Personaly I've pulled up old mixes and felt they seemed a little thin and lacking a 3D quality only to remember I recorded them at 44K so I don't see myself being moved from recording at 96K even if god himself was found woking at 44K.

by **jkhuri44** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:57 pm

I don't see myself being moved from recording at 96K even if god himself was found woking at 44K.

thanks for opening the can of worms i didnt have the balls to.
My sentiments exactly.

by **David W** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:05 pm

Simon B wrote:chris lord-alge still records at 44.1

Mark Rochelle said on here a long time ago why he thought 44.1 was better... something along the lines of too much number crunching, when doing a sample rate conversion I dont know if he still feels that way,

I remember Dan Lavry saying around 60K would be the optimum middle ground for "Prosessing Strain V Resolution".
So 48K or 88K in that case would both be viable if you were concerned about the Math.

I guess it really depends on how well the DA convertor reconstructs the samples back to a full Analog signal. I feel my Digi 192 is better at 96K in that case.

by **jkhuri44** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:11 pm

anyway, after that massive thread steal...
what have they actually improved?? I cbf logging on to their webby and finding out??

anything worth noting??

by **David W** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:13 pm

jkhuri44 wrote:anyway, after that massive thread steal...
what have they actually improved?? I cbf logging on to their webby and finding out??

anything worth noting??

Looking at the website the interface looks different. Plus some free plug's. :-)

by **jkhuri44** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:19 pm

sounds like a nice way of saying "they havent done anything, but their charging money for upgrades"

by **David W** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:31 pm

I would say there would be some compatibility upgrades. Expecialy for Leapord.
You have to pay the programers someway.

by **TimS** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:02 pm

jkhuri44 wrote:sounds like a nice way of saying "they havent done anything, but their charging money for upgrades"

there are heaps of changes (alot that you asked about initially) - dont be so lazy - go for a read JK and check it out.. ;-)

Pro Tools 8

Who is online