So I just did the sound for a small college film here to test out boom recorder and it is amazing. The sound logs are great. But I was wondering does anyone know of a mixer that has firewire out what will output at 192khz? I have a few project soon that want to record at 192 and the mackie only goes up to 96. I can use my 702 for 192 but love the multi channels that boom recorder offers. Thank to anyone with any information.
Recording at 192 with Boom Recorder
- Thread starter sysyphus
- Start date
I am aware you dont need over 48 with film. But my studio shoots on the RedCam and we print to blue-ray. So we will be doing DTS-Master within the year. So I will need 192khz for DTS-Master. I know what i need and asking.
I was also not saying the 192 had to be with the mackie. I was wondering if there is any other boards that can do firewire 192khz. It is not rediculas to need 192 when that is what my studio needs.
I was also not saying the 192 had to be with the mackie. I was wondering if there is any other boards that can do firewire 192khz. It is not rediculas to need 192 when that is what my studio needs.
Gohanto
Veteran
There's a can of worms I'm probably opening about what sampling rate you need, but 96kHz is used by most people I know.
The biggest reason oddly isn't hearing up to 50kHz, but actually the A to D converters work much better with higher sampling rates.
As for 192, I agree that with the Mackie you certainly wouldn't notice a difference. Polishing a turd really. I'd grab a Sound Devices mixer and a separate A-D converter if you really want if you really want a high enough quality were anyone could tell a difference with 192. (Although even then it's not guaranteed)
And as for a DTS-MA track, that has nothing to do with sampling rates. The track CAN support higher rates, but Wall-e had an excellent DTS-MA track with 48k/24-bit.
The biggest reason oddly isn't hearing up to 50kHz, but actually the A to D converters work much better with higher sampling rates.
As for 192, I agree that with the Mackie you certainly wouldn't notice a difference. Polishing a turd really. I'd grab a Sound Devices mixer and a separate A-D converter if you really want if you really want a high enough quality were anyone could tell a difference with 192. (Although even then it's not guaranteed)
And as for a DTS-MA track, that has nothing to do with sampling rates. The track CAN support higher rates, but Wall-e had an excellent DTS-MA track with 48k/24-bit.
Last edited:
I know you can do DTS-Master in 48 the head guys at the studio would like to do a project in 192. Also I have a client asking to records a job in 192. So that is why I am wanting it. And again I am NOT trying to run 192 through the Mackie. I was asking what other products can do 192. Also the mackie 1620 offer a lot of options for location recording that make it not a turd. I know the preamps are not the best but the options with the board make it a good board for location sound.
Steve House
Veteran
As for firewire mixers that can do 192 I don't know, haven't looked into them. But if a combination of a conventional analog mixer and a standalone firewire audio interface capable of recording at 192 will do the trick for you, my Echo AudioFire 12 offers 12 24/192 full-duplex analog inputs and outputs. MOTU interfaces such as the Traveler also offer 24/192
Last edited:
Hxd Ped
Active member
I am not aware of any firewire mixers that will run at 192k. In fact, I am not aware of any firewire interfaces at all that will go up to 192k, but then I haven't looked.
I think if you want 192k you'll probably have to go with a Digidesign 192 interface and a Pro Tools HD rig, or equivalent.
BTW, kudos for using 192k. Glad to see that some people aren't afraid to go against common opinions.
I think if you want 192k you'll probably have to go with a Digidesign 192 interface and a Pro Tools HD rig, or equivalent.
BTW, kudos for using 192k. Glad to see that some people aren't afraid to go against common opinions.
Steve House
Veteran
Dialog at 192 makes even less sense. I could see it - maybe - for very wide dynamic range orchestral or operatic music like the 1812 or Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" but even then it's overkill.
Last edited:
ScoobySounds
Well-known member
why would you need 192khz for a DTS master? surely they master in 48/16? like everything else?
i only record in 48/16 for camera sync, unless specifically doing fx that are going to be slowed down.
total overkill mate, don't do it!
i only record in 48/16 for camera sync, unless specifically doing fx that are going to be slowed down.
total overkill mate, don't do it!
ScoobySounds
Well-known member
ah I see.
well if its a tech experiment then you should prob advise them they can only have 2 tracks of 192 (from your 702) and then just muliti track the rest as normal in 48/16 or 48/24. To multitrack in 192 will be tricky and expensive on location. Balance that with the necessity and it become unviable.
They'll probebly abandon the 192 experiment after you give them the 48 stuff.
I agree that 192 is not needed at all for the projects that want them. I do not think I would even notice much of a difference, but as I said the client has request it so I am researching and if it was possible then I was going to see if that is still what they want and wanted to pay for. One of them I already said no too, it was a web series for that movie Jumper. I asked if they planned to release outside of the web they said no so I told them right then nothing over 48khz is needed. One of the projects thought is a feature based around musicians and bands so they want the highest sound quality they can get. But as one person said and I think is what I will do is offer 2 channels in 192khz with the 702 and up to 96khz for the other 12 channels. Also to the person who says the idea is stupid why is it stupid? If the client is willing to pay for it and they want to have in the highest quality available why not offer it for them. I am not going to do it for documentary's or movies with very little sound work. But for action and sci-fi based stuff it maybe useful. But I have my 702 for recording most 192 stuff I was just wondering if there were any mixer that can do it.
Steve House
Veteran
Sre, if you are providing a service to your client and that's what they've requested from you ... But as a professional I think you also have the obligation to give them your best advice on where their money is best spent, to be candid with them whether they're really getting their money's worth or are merely chasing illusions.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I didn't mean you were stupid but that recording production in 192 is stupid. If the client wants to do it and they are willing to pay for it then have at it.
Why is 192 stupid?
Well pretty much nobody is going to hear it. And I don't mean that they aren't going to hear it physically but that they won't even get the choice. 192 is only available on DTS and then only on a stereo track. The same people who are frothing for 192 will absolutely need surround, so now your not 192 anymore, and your not lossless anymore. So this "great" 192 recording gets squashed down to a high end MP3 surround track. It's stupid because even if you get them to agree to a 192 looseness dts disk, 9 times out of ten it's going to be played on someone's "home theatre" system so they wouldn't hear it even if it were possible to hear it. Now this is a band you say so maybe there isn't going to be any real audio post with BG's etc being added but, in cases where that is going to happen those sounds (the vast majority anyway) are going to be coming in at 48/24 and below. So only your dialog track (mono) is actually going to be 192.
That said if someone is going to throw cash at me to record 192 production I'm going to find out how to do it in Boom Recorder, so good luck to you.
The other side of the "best quality" issue is time in post. Your planing on handing over four TIMES the amount of data you would be at 48/24. So post is going to have four times as much time wasted in transfers etc. Everything is going to take LONGER. That translates to lower quality, for the same $. So unless they are willing to throw more $ at post they are probably going to get lower quality not higher. But like I said I 'm not implying anything about you. I'm a freelancer also. They want me to do something ridiculous that will cost a bunch, it's my job to point out that it might not be the best use of resources and if they still want to go on, I'm there. So I think it's stupid of them to want to do it not stupid of you to try and figure out how to do it.
Back to your original question. I think converter boxes and an analog mixer are probably your best bet.
Just wondering where are you reading that you can not do 5.1 192khz? I once again do not think 192 is need for any any of the work I am doing. Thought just so you know from what I read here It is possible to do 192 with 5.1 and 96khz with 7.1. Though if we were going to do a mix of those lvls we would be going somewhere like todd ao for the mix. At this point if I want to record 192, which I dont I would just bring them into my studio put them in front of the green screen and record into my 192 I/O HD3 setup.