PRO TOOLS LE vs. EVERYTHING ELSE

[Gus Lozada]

I love Toft stuff.

[Gus Lozada]

Why don't just use a swappable hard disk?

 

I agree. This would be really lame if everything had to be re-recorded.

 

Busch.

 

Absolutely.

[Joe Muscara]

Addressing the 64-bit question already discussed in this thread, see this article about Apple's release of 64-bit Logic and its affect on vendors, plug-ins, and memory.

[e-keys]

FYI: Just got keyboard mag today. They have a review of Sonar 8.5.

[kanker.]

Thanks guys, here's another question: Is there much of a difference between recording at 24/44 and 24/96?

24/96 is the current "future proof" format - DVD-A maxes out at 24/96 for anything over stereo. In other words, a 2.1 mix can only be delivered via DVD-A at a max of 24/96. A stereo or mono mix could be up to 24/192. The big question is what is your market? If you're looking at creating audiophile material, then you want to record to 24/192 no matter what the final delivery format is. If your market is iTunes or even just personal use then 16/44.1 is probably going to be fine. The disk throughput capabilities of your system combined with your RAM and processor capabilities would also help determine what depth/rate to use which will maximize system resources and give you the "best" end product.

 

Of course, as Bill said, recording with crappy gear at 24/96 isn't going to sound as good as 16/44.1 with great gear. Converters are a bit overrated a spec - analog signal path and clock are what make or break a digital recording. If you have the "best" converters available paired with a crappy front end or a bad clock, you're not going to get as much quality sound as decent converters with a great analog path and a solid clock.

 

Remember, the storage requirements for audio aren't small. For 16/44.1 you're talking in the range of 10MB/minute of stereo audio. Those numbers increase dramatically as you add to the bit depth and the sample rate. Storage and throughput become important factors as those parameters increase. That's before you start worrying about the major processor hit you can take trying to process that audio with effects at high depth/rate.

[Jim Alfredson]

24/44.1 is as low as anyone should go these days. Even if your final product is regular Redbook CD, there's no reason to go 16/44.1 unless you're running a very old and slow computer.

 

Bit depth is much more important than sample rate, imo. The difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is HUGE. Unfortunately most people who are relatively new to digital recording track in 24 bit like they tracked in 16 bit; slamming everything as close to digital zero as possible without going over and clipping. The reason you do this in 16 bit is because the dynamic range is so small; the quantization you get in 16 bit with dynamically low level material is really nasty. That's not an issue with 24 bit. In fact, your average levels with 24 bit should be between -16 and -12dbfs. Only the transients should ever go into the upper regions of the meter and you should never approach 0. (I'm talking individual tracks here).

 

Before I learned this, I was routinely tracking things in 24 bit as high as I could get them. This gets into what kanker is saying about analog front-ends. Most analog equipment is not comfortable at that high of voltage levels. It also gets into the summing bus architecture of your DAW. If all your tracks are approaching the maximum level and you put 16 of those into your mix bus... well... you can imagine what's going to happen.

 

Once I started tracking with my averages hitting -12 to -16dbfs, I found that my mixes came together faster and sounded better. There's a really great thread about this and the theory behind it on TapeOp: http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=38430&start=0

 

Long, but worth the read.

 

 

Concerning 24/96 and above, there are precious few interfaces that can actually do justice to those sample rates, Prism being one, and none of them are very cheap.

[burningbusch]

When you're talking 96/24 you're also inevitably dealing with sample rate conversion. Below is a link to an interesting site that compares SRC using a wide variety of software and some high-end realtime hardware. SRC is a GREAT way to F%$K UP your pristine 96/24 source. High-end hardware, e.g. Weiss and Mytek does no better and often times is worse than run of the mill software. Some high-end software, e.g. Sadie, can REALLY SUCK.

 

Anyway, if you're interested put iZotope RX Adv. 1.05 (High Steepness) in the bottom and compare it to the others by changing the top dialogs. Izotope does nearly a flawless job of SRC.

 

Infinitewave SRC

 

Busch.

[Cygnus64]

Thanks for all the info, guys.

 

I'm going to be recording another album in late spring/early summer, I'm writing the music now. My goal is to have a brand new (albeit modest) rig, since I'm working with some ancient stuff. I'm looking to get a laptop (so I can record in halls) and Sonar 8.5 and use 64 bit if I can. Some of my software probably won't work in 64 bit like EZ Drummer, but I'll worry about that later and have plenty of other stuff.

 

I've recorded at 24/44.1 for many years. I doubt I'll have an interface better than your obligatory prosumer stuff. My only thought is that I will have some of the acoustic instruments recorded at a pro studio that will definitely have the cool toys, but at this point I will probably just stick to 24/44.1.

 

My mediocre engineering skills aren't remotely close to good enough that I should be concerned with sample rate.

[Gus Lozada]

24/44.1 is as low as anyone should go these days. Even if your final product is regular Redbook CD, there's no reason to go 16/44.1 unless you're running a very old and slow computer.

 

Bit depth is much more important than sample rate, imo. The difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is HUGE. Unfortunately most people who are relatively new to digital recording track in 24 bit like they tracked in 16 bit; slamming everything as close to digital zero as possible without going over and clipping. The reason you do this in 16 bit is because the dynamic range is so small; the quantization you get in 16 bit with dynamically low level material is really nasty. That's not an issue with 24 bit. In fact, your average levels with 24 bit should be between -16 and -12dbfs. Only the transients should ever go into the upper regions of the meter and you should never approach 0. (I'm talking individual tracks here).

 

100% Agreed. Thanks for bringing this up.

[Jim Alfredson]

There's a very positive review of Cubase 5 in the latest issue of TapeOp magazine, btw. More importantly, half the review is written by a long-time user and the other half by someone who had never used Cubase before.

 

I thought these quotes from the first-time user stuck out: "The Cubase GUI is clean, smooth, and uncluttered. If you're going to stare at an application 8 hours a day, it should at least be pleasant and I found Cubase to me more than easy on the eyes."

 

Also: "Editing is intuitive, with common tasks such as volume adjustments or fades implemented directly in the playback window. This is so much faster and easier than in Pro Tools, and I confess missing such features when not using Cubase."

 

And finally: "I ended up mixing/stem-feeding the entire CD using Cubase as the pitcher/source. My impressions are this is an applicatin that lets you make music and do your job while keeping out of the way. Cubase has the friendliness of Garageband and the firepower of Pro Tools. I can see why so many people rely on Cubase or Nuendo for their professional production needs (and why so many great engineers like David Miles Huber have been such vocal proponents of the line.)"

 

[Gus Lozada]

Also: "Editing is intuitive, with common tasks such as volume adjustments or fades implemented directly in the playback window. This is so much faster and easier than in Pro Tools, and I confess missing such features when not using Cubase."

 

It seems they don't know Pro Tools well!

It is all right at the Edit Window, available all the time.

 

But after all, it is a matter of personal taste.

Mind you, guys, even while being an AVID employee, I was not using Pro Tools that much ... until version 8, which has truly everything I need.

[Jim Alfredson]

It's all about comfort and which program makes sense to you.

 

One thing about Pro Tools that I will say, however, is that last I knew you couldn't just push a button and flip the phase of a track. You have to put in a plug-in or render the track first. With Cubase there is a phase button on every channel, like an analog mixer.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

It's all about comfort and which program makes sense to you.

 

One thing about Pro Tools that I will say, however, is that last I knew you couldn't just push a button ....

 

I see discussions like this all the time, wherein this or that program can't do this or that thing. I guess they have validity if you do that sort of thing all the time. But for every plus, there is usually a minus. Over on the Samplitude forums there are people who know every little thing that Pro Tools won't do, or that take a number of steps to do in Pro Tools but is simple in Samplitude. Fair enough I guess, but that doesn't stop people from buying Pro Tools.

 

I think that it is interesting that guys like Bob Ohlsson, a former Motown engineer who has been doing this as long as anyone, uses a combination of Samplitude and Pro Tools. (Not that I'm pushing either, I'm saying that some of the pros recognize that no single app covers all the bases for them.) Sequoia covers all the bases for me. But my needs are simpler than what seems to be needed by a lot of home recordists.

[Jim Alfredson]

Of course! I just thought it was odd. Switching phase (or polarity if you prefer) is a very basic function and when you're dealing with multiple microphones, something that is extremely useful. To have to use a plug-in to do it or render the audio seems silly in a professional DAW program.

[kanker.]

The thing is, do you want a preprogrammed button to take care if it, or would you prefer a plugin which offers more control?

[Jim Alfredson]

A button and if I need more control then a plug-in. The button works in 99.9% of instances. One click, problem is either fixed or it's not. Usually it is.