Re-amping Analog 96kHz

shasha said:
The real easy way to judge this is to record both a wet and dry track at the same time, reamp it and then compare the two wet tracks. Do this in both analog and digital and I guarantee that the two tracks in digital will be indistinguishable. To me that equates to better.

Of course this is just my perspective, how your workflow is doesn't matter to me and how you get the job done is your business. I spent a lot of time trying to get beyond the 48kHz restriction and finally gave in because it was better.
Click to expand...

You are right the two tracks will be almost indistinguishable.

There are only 2 reasons for recording at 96kHz
Lowest possible buffer setting for tracking
Mixing with time based effects

Again...

"I spelled out instructions on how to do this to help other Pro Tools members...I will apply it in practice this weekend...I merely was asking if anyone sees why this will or will not work..."
 
michaiel said:
Again...

"I spelled out instructions on how to do this to help other Pro Tools members...I will apply it in practice this weekend...I merely was asking if anyone sees why this will or will not work..."
Click to expand...

I see no reason why it will not work. But your OP did also ask if anyone had a possible "better solution". My only point was that analog reamp doesn't work for me. The suggestions I offered would work better for me, so I offered them.

Everyone has their priorities. Minimum latency is up there for me as well; probably second on the list. If the Axe ran at 96kHz, then that is what I would use to record everything. Reamping digitally with the Axe II for the first time was a revelation for me. I'll jump through whatever hoops are required to keep reamping in the digital domain; even if it dictates what sample rate I use.
 
steadystate said:
I see no reason why it will not work. But your OP did also ask if anyone had a possible "better solution". My only point was that analog reamp doesn't work for me. The suggestions I offered would work better for me, so I offered them.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, I know now I should have kept the question more specific....all is good....
 
Re-amping is easy, but cannot run Cab-Lab standalone while your DAW interface is at 96kHz as I was fearing...
I am going to start another post about this and hope Cliff is looking...
 
I would give an AAX VST host a try in Pro Tools.

In an earlier version, the Cab Lab plugin worked fine in BlueCat Audio's VST host: https://www.bluecataudio.com/Products/Product_PatchWork/

I haven't used it like that in a while but I suspect it still works okay.

I do have all my sessions at 48K in ProTools though. I'm not sure if that is an issue with a VST host or not?

In regards to what sampling rates sound best, it's the actual hardware / software implementation that often affects the audio quality vs. the theoretical audio quality given a perfect implementation.

So for any given signal processing chain 96k could conceivably be better or worse; although theoretically it has advantages.
 
Wouldn't 48 kHz upsample perfectly at a 1:2 ratio to 96 kHz though, and so should produce zero aliasing?

Seems like a "pure" 48 kHz recording should sound identical to a 48 kHz signal that's been up-sampled to 96 kHz then, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom