ccsnd

Good. I've encountered this man twice.

Most irritating individual I have ever met.

you have to pay to talk to anybody at avid.  I think its $50.  There is no technical reason PT11 could not have supported the RTAS format and 32 bit plug-ins.

 

Yes, it might be old bloated code, but it still worked.  That is better than not having a lot of those tools at all - which is what we ended up with.

In fact, a few years ago, while avid/digi I/O was required to run pt, I would have said protools was one of the worst options.

For playback almost any daw is fine.

If audition does all the things you need (which it does) than it's just as ok as protools.

Anybody that says pt is better for playback than most any other daw is full of it.

Doh, that is so stupid. There's way too much automation in TV news these days. 

 

It's really weird walking into a studio during production and there is only one or two people in the control room.

 

It's going to get a lot worse.

He shouldn't have any trouble finding someone decent in Chicago for an A2 at that price

I once got a call similar to this. "All your levels are really low! We need to turn our speakers way up to hear it!"

As we were on the phone I pulled up the files and checked my levels. All good.

I told them I would show up and help them fix it with these conditions -

If its my fault, I'll fix it for free and refund a days rate.

If they are doing something stupid, I want double my days rate for the waste of time.

I showed up later that day, turned up the master (set at -20 when I showed up) on their 4ch mackie that was being fed from the output of their avid system to their speakers, asked for my check, went home.

Best 4000/hr I ever made

Last year I made a reservation at harras, cheeked in really late one night after going to see snoop dogg, and got stuck in the presidential suite for the week.

Everything should be on the same master clock. That is the most important thing. Use a clock that can sync tri level and output 96wc. Send a mix to a camera and an iso to another.

If you referenced -20, and the are seeing -15, tell them to turn it down! That's what a reference is!

If he ever finds you in real live I hope he ejects your nose from your face.

This Arnold dude is a real jackass.

Again I type long winded responses, and again safari crashes and deletes all my work...

Ok, first let me reiterate that the majority of the benefit of 96 will be found in post an for those who record things other than dialog in the field.

For dialog only, yes there are benefits, but they are negligible.

Frequencies outside the range if human hearing interact with frequencies we can hear. We agree on this it seems. The results of these frequencies are not distortion as long as they are being accurately and naturally reproduced. This is no different than the combination of frequencies you can hear.

When it comes to 96, more samples and higher frequencies result it better quality more accurate processing and higher quality, more natural summing.

Better manipulation especially when it comes to things involving time. More samples = more stretch with fewer artifacts.

There is a big difference playing back a single track with extended frequency range and playing back 200 tracks all interacting with each other with an extended frequency range.

Could you up sample your location tracks to 96 from 48 to support a 96 work flow? Sure. But why not record at 96 with everything else?

Big picture.

It's very difficult to discuss these topics in text. I think a interactive real time video discussion is much more appropriate. If people are interested maybe we should make that happen.

Then we can easily have pictures and audio comparisons and so on...

When I say not to just think about high frequencies I'm responding to one individual post.

The other things I'll respond to when I'm not on my phone

You need to get your mind off of bandwidth and frequency response. Higher sample rate have benefits other than this.

Benefits I've already mentioned.

CF cards can be used like IDE drives and are more compatible.

 

SD cards are their own format, and have had several format changes throughout the years (SD / SDHC / SDXC / ETC...)  not all cards work in all devices.

Also I think most IMAX films are done in 96

I might be wrong about that though

Also physics and psycho acoustics are very difficult things to discuss on the internet and are better learned from a formal learning environment and months and years of research.

I should clarify that I'm talking big picture - from production to distro being at 96, otherwise, you are correct. It would be useless.

All the hardware I mentioned are used in post production, and would benefit from the higher sample rates. If post is at 96 or 192, production should be at 96 or 192.

Again I'm talking big picture for film and tv.

There are a lot of "extras" and transients, and harmonics, and etc... That make sound waves very complex.

It's that complexity that were used to hearing in the real world.

Lower sample rates fundamentally reduce complexity and definition.

Again ill mention I'm traveling and away from a computer. I have not carefully read the above posts and it's difficult for me to cite sources and find references using this method.

Music and sfx are, at most, four other channels*. The directionality in those sources is usually created in post, by operations that take place in the audible range.

Not when it comes to stereo, 5.1, 7.1 sources recorded in the field. Both during production and post.

Is there anything on a dialog track we need that 48 doesn't cover? No probably not, but a sound track is not only made up of dialog. It's also made up of music, effects, Foley, etc... All things that can benefit from higher sampling rates. More definition = cleaner/truer sound that is not only easier to manipulate, but also has more manipulation possibilities.

You need to think of the big picture. The job of the location sound engineer is to gather as many resources as possible for the post guys to do their job. And their job is better done at 96 or 192 or etc...

There are reasons why companies like Neve, focusrite, ssl, API spent time and money researching and building audio tools that had higher bandwidth than that of human hearing. Those frequencies make a very clear and audible difference in frequencies we can hear.

Here are 2 articles I could quickly find. One is a scholarly peer reviewed article, one is wikipedia (but still good)

http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/59/3/10.1121/1.380913

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

Its also important to remember that sound in the real world is made of complex waves with a lot more character than true sine waves. The lower the sample rate the less of this character you capture.

I don't know what Jay's qualifications are but I have degrees in acoustics, computer science, and telecommunications. All with concentrations in audio. I have been trained by, and continue to be trained by the best engineers regionally, notionally, and internationally. My favorite being the man that wrote this book I think everyone should read.

http://www.amazon.com/Technical-fundamentals-audio-Ted-Uzzle/dp/0872887014

Physics and psychoacoustics are very complicated things and these discussions don't translate to internet forums and large groups of people well.

Talking about the interaction of sound waves both audible and inaudible is a physics discission. One I'm not prepared to take part of from my phone.

DTS does some incredibly cool things with surround and stereo headphones.

Also the interaction is NOT only in the inaudible range and has many benefits in all kinds of media.

Your argument is very narrow minded, and I'm not sure you understand these concepts.

Maybe take a class on psychoacoustics.

You don't record room tones? Or try to capture sounds other than dialog on set?

It might not benefit YOUR work, but it sure benefits others. Sound for picture is a lot more than just what you do on set. Overall, 96 or higher is beneficial for the ENTIRE sound for picture workflow.

It doesn't have anything to do with binural sound. It has everything to do with sound quality and creating or recreating realistic seamless sound.

Yes , it does.