Mac mini 2012 i7 - Performance switching to 96 kHz

[Oddur G]

Hi guys/gals. I´m a long time Motu user but this is my first post here on the forum. I´m about to take the leap over to 96 kHz recording and I´m not sure if my Mac mini is up to the task.
I´m kind of hoping that I can continue using my Mac mini and I want to invest in one of the Motu AVB interfaces, probably the 828es and an LP32 further down the line. Is any one here on the list knowledgeable to help me guestimate whether the little beast would be able to handle 96 kHz

Currently I have a Motu 896 mk3 hybrid and an Audient asp 880 light piped to the 896, DP 9.51 and two UAD 2 effects processors a duo and a quad. I also have all sorts of other gear connected such as synths, an Oasys pci running of a G3 beige light pited into the 896. I have another rig for live recording of my band and will be using the set up listed above to overdub background vocals, add vi´s and so forth and of course mix the music. At 48 kHz I´ve never had problems with track counts. I went over the songs I´ve worked on the past 10 years the highest trackcount being 40 mono tracks.

Thanks in advance
Oddur

[mikehalloran]

Whether 96kHz is an improvement or not is for your ears to decide.

Other than that, files will be twice the size. Certain processes (i.e. most) will take longer because of that. I see nothing in your hardware that can't handle this already... if you have the time, that is.

You may find the increased time bearable. It may also make you wanting something faster like, oh... any current SSD based i7 Mac including the new Mini. You will not want anything with a fusion drive.

[Oddur G]

Thanks mikehalloran for your reply. Yes, I´ve resisted the temptation up until now . I downloaded individual audio files from David Crosby´s song "things we do for love" the other day. They are recorded in 88k. They just sound otherworldly. I know they´re recorded in a top notch tracking room with world class engineers and equipment and performed by this giant of an artist, but..... I don´t know. Perhaps I should record a few songs in 96k before making a big investment.

Thanks again for your advise.

Oddur

[HCMarkus]

One simple test: Take the Crosby tracks, sample rate convert to 44 or 48k, and see if you can tell the difference.

[FMiguelez]

One simple test: Take the Crosby tracks, sample rate convert to 44 or 48k, and see if you can tell the difference.

What HCMarkus said.

Obviously, it must be done blindly, instantaneously and enough times to see if you can, reliably, tell them apart significantly more times than mere guessing (Melda Production has a free tool especially for this purpose).
That's the only way to know for sure.

Hi guys/gals. I´m a long time Motu user but this is my first post here on the forum. I´m about to take the leap over to 96 kHz recording

Hi, Oddur. Welcome to the forum!

You must have your good reasons (I hope) to make this switch into the placebo zone, so it's your call, of course.
However, unless the reasons are valid (i.e, objective measurable improvements or successful subjective ABX tests), it always saddens me to witness people doing this switch, for many reasons (but that's my own problem, I know)

But yeah. Your machine can handle it.
Just know that you will instantaneously lose around 50% performance, since you're effectively doubling the processing load, not to mention doubling your disk r/w operations (stress) and storage requirements.

Working with 96KHz must be one hell of an obvious improvement to, in addition to many other bad things, be willing to give up so many resources.
I wish I could hear this obvious worth-while improvement...
:dead horse:

Didn't we have this same discussion in another thread like a couple of weeks ago, for the hundredth time?

[Oddur G]

Thanks guys for your replies.

Apparently I´m not the first fool to ask this question , but.... I was bitten by this audio recording bug in the last century and I´ve been at it ever since, buying gear, recording, reading articles, listening to examples, reading books on recording, listening some more to examples, buying better monitors, discussing acoustics over at gearslutz, treating my mixing area, doing some more recording, buying better monitors and treating the recording space and struggling to hear the subtle differences in the recordings and sometimes feeling completely lost. Then when I calmly sit down, listen to my first mixes and compare them to my latest work I can hear a huge difference in quality. That kind of makes me feel a little better, but still I´m struggling with hearing the subtle differences in sound quality of a and b. What I think I can learn from that is not being too up tight, relax and trust my intuition and try balancing it with a little realizm.

Thanks Fmiguelez for welcoming me to the group. I am, based on you guy´s recommendations do a demo recording in 96 kHz and see how it goes.

I think this forum is much more fun than the gearslutz, people are more outspoken and to the point.

Thanks again guys and FMiguelez, I´m not the guy who was discussing this subject with you in another thread .

Take care
Oddur

[TinenTech]

At an AES meeting in Amsterdam years ago, John Watkinson, author of "The Art of Digital Audio", got into quite a back-and-forth with an audience member who challenged him about high sample rates, which he said aren't necessary with modern oversampling A/D and D/A converters. He said something like this:

"If you're hearing a difference in recording at 96 kHz, I assure you it's not because you're hearing the "missing octave" above 20 kHz. You can't. What's more, most of your microphones can't produce it, either. What you're hearing is the dome of your tweeters breaking up as they go into modes trying to reproduce frequencies up to 48 k. So, what you're hearing isn't high frequencies, but distortion byproducts down in the audible passband."

Interesting idea...

A software engineer told me once that DSP plugins have fewer ticks to process signal at a higher sample rate and sometimes their performance is compromised, and they sound better at 48 k.

[Oddur G]

Thanks Tinen Tech
Interesting. If I remember correctly there was at some point a famous gadget called aural exciter that added harmonics to the audio stream so perhaps that´s what we´re hearing .

I didn´t quite understand the statement by the software engineer you quoted. Did he mean that the DSP plugins sound better when their performance is compromised, or that they sound worse?

Thanks again for your insight
Oddur

[TinenTech]

According to him, lower sample rates are better for signal processing, especially complex calculations, because there is more computation time between samples to perform the signal processing.

And you're right about the Aphex Aural Exciter as an analogy for what Dr. Watkinson was saying.

[Oddur G]

Many thanks TinenTech for the explanation and your time.

According to this the bottom line is: I´ll have to look elsewhere in order to produce better sounding recordings .

Back to the drawing board.

Thanks
Oddur

p.s. I´ve been looking at some of the other subjects and there´s a lot of valuable and pertinent information here on Motunation.

[FMiguelez]

I didn´t quite understand the statement by the software engineer you quoted. Did he mean that the DSP plugins sound better when their performance is compromised, or that they sound worse?

It's quite a wild west out there...Some plugins apparently sound better at 96+, some sound better at 48KHz, and there's no difference between others.
It all depends on the chops and knowledge of the programmer to deal with all DSP functions correctly.

I've been reading lots about this lately, and it seems there are many many MANY places in the plugins where developers may mess up horribly unless they are absolutely brilliant and know what they're doing.

That's why it's so important to buy from reputable vendors/ independent developers and TEST ALL your plugins before you incorporate them in your normal workflow to see what they actually do to your signal...
I bet you'd be horrified to see some of my own test results for certain plugins and all the crap they infuse into your signal, regardless of the SR... nicht gut.

Like Ethan Winer likes to say (paraphrasing him)>
Just moving your head one inch to either side from your sweet spot will have a much more obvious and pronounced effect on how you hear the music than whatever difference may be between an otherwise identical 48, 96 or 192 KHZ production.

Also, a small EQ move, or even what you had for lunch today, will have more impact on your sound than whatever SR you use (correctly).
IOW, the fact that only some plugins allegedly sound better at ultra high SRs should NOT be an argument for using 96KHZ+, since there are many other plugins that sound better at 48KHz.

Since we don't have any control or knowledge of how they make the signal flow from one plug to the next or how they hand back the signal to the DAW, or how they upsample and whether they dither where appropriate, etc., it's pointless to worry about this particular issue. We can't control it... HOWEVER, we CAN control which note-combinations we put into our music, and those would be ultimately responsible for our success or lack thereof, NOT the SRs

Ok. My break's up. Time for another Pomodoro cycle...

[FMiguelez]

According to this the bottom line is: I´ll have to look elsewhere in order to produce better sounding recordings .

Back to the drawing board.

I hope your drawing board includes honing composition/orchestration skills for the writing side, and learning great mixing/production techniques for the tech side.
THAT's how you'll make better music and recordings, NOT by switching to higher SRs!

p.s. I´ve been looking at some of the other subjects and there´s a lot of valuable and pertinent information here on Motunation.

Yeah, this forum is really awesome! We have lots of talented and knowledgeable specialists around here. I've learnt tons by just sticking around

[Oddur G]

Thanks FMiguelez for your detailed answers.

It´s good to see that you´re quoting Ethan Winer, I have great respect for him and his wisdom regarding acoustics and I´ve again and again revisited his material.

I have and will continue "to hone my composition/orchestration skills".

Best regards
Oddur