Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The big question about PTHD to me is...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA

    The big question about PTHD to me is...

    The biggest question to me is whether or not PTHD will make any difference sonically at lower sampling rates, like 48K which I currently record. I typically track to RADAR and do SCSI exports to .wav files which are then imported and mixed in PT. I monitor through a Mytek 8x96 DAC.

    That means two things.

    1) I don't particularly care about the sound of the HD converters, since I'd never use them (RADAR in, Mytek out), and

    2) I won't be moving up to 96K anytime soon unless I can shoehorn the typical 48 tracks of info onto 24 tracks (2 RADARS at 12 tracks each at 96K). Here's a hint: Ain't gonna happen.

    So for me to justify the expense of an HD system, I would need to establish that it does actually make 24/48K info sound better than my current mix system. To establish that as fact, I would have to do some listening tests. I could take existing mixes (PT mixes) that have been done on my Mix system and then open the same sessions on an HD system and run a mixed version from there as well. Then if I compared the two, I would get a pretty good idea of whether the extra expense had some sonic justification at the lower SR that I choose.

    It seems that the other big source of debate is whether recording at 96K will make ANY difference when it is downsampled to 16/44.1K. That one is harder to analyze but not impossible to prove. All it would require is some tracks recorded at 96K and the same tracks (likely not an identical performance but the same song, same session, just consecutive takes) recorded at 24/48K or 44.1K. Then you could mix the two side by side, one with SRC and downsampling applied after the mix, the other without. It would be simple enough to put them both side by side on a CD and see if you could tell them apart, without any hints of which is which.

    Do these experiments seem like they would work? Would they answer the questions most of us seem to have? What other questions or issues do they not address? (The first that comes to mind is whether the new PT SRC sounds adequate for downsampling-a critical issue for those who do "bounce to disk" and then "convert after bounce.") I'll leave alone the 96K release formats for now, though some maintain that even 24/44.1 material when upsampled sounds enough better to qualify its release as hi-res material.

    Of course I'm leaving aside the very real non-sonic questions of "who cares?" and "who is willing to pay for it?" We'll just stick to sonic issues for now.
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  2. #2
    Kevin Perry is offline Gold Club Member (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Nashville, TN
    Taking the converters out of the equation (which I'm sure are quite excellent on the new PT considering the design team.) the only thing I can figure that will affect the sonics is the plugins.

    They still bottle neck at 24 bit i/o on the dsp chips but the higher sample rates can be a help in sound quality with plugins....compressors mainly from what i have read.

    But at 48k and below? I don't see ANY technical reason it will sound better when you don't figure the converters in the picture...and if quality clocking is used.

    Good converters, good clocking, Sony EQ, a little outboard compression.... PT Mix is where I will stay for now.
    Kevin Perry
    Chameleon Music
    Nashville, TN

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Houston, TX
    Considering the amount of money one pays for a TDM rig, I think that its wise to stick with what you have as long as possible. I can play the latest and greatest game in the past with Cakewalk, Nuendo, Wavelab, etc but not with PT.

    I think HD makes more sense for someone who just entered the TDM arena like myself since it cost almost the same with brand new Mix rig with the exception of the converters. And then in 3-4 years when the next generation PT comes out, I'll probably be in the same boat as you (Lynn and Kevin) with the decision to stick with what I have as long as possible.

    After all, I've found that many clients don't know the difference and they compare PT studio rate prices anyway.

    This opinion may of course be entirely invalid if you're so popular people want you no matter what.
    Haniel Trisna
    Mixermaster Audio Engineering

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    London, UK
    Strikes me Lynn, that you would be a candidate for the rumoured digital only i/o box for PTHD.. it has been 'hinted at' by Dave LeBolt to the stunned suprise of the keenest of digi watchers.. but beware, like a lot of future cool features this might only exist in the wishfull thinking of PT owners and never come to fruition..

    Can you detail what you get up to in PT?

    EQ? Compress? Plug in reverbs? Automation?

    Have you talked to Michael Wagner at Wireworld about his Euphonix R1 and Sony DMX R100 combo? He says he's in heaven with it.

    You are an odd person to advise about PT as you dont use PT or Apogee converters to get in or out.. But PT MAKE YOU BUY A CONVERTER with each system..

    Fun test BTW
    Pro Jules

Similar Threads

  1. Live sound question
    By TheMusicFactory in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2005, 12:39 AM
  2. Final Word on PTHD Pres and Conversion?
    By Wireline in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-22-2005, 05:33 PM
  3. a frequency asked question (sample rates)
    By Steve Rawlinson in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-15-2005, 05:13 AM
  4. Pro Tools LE question...
    By QNote in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-29-2005, 08:57 PM
  5. converter/pre upgrade question
    By cjbdrmr in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-06-2005, 05:08 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts