New Home Studio Set Up help with software please!

octatonic

fwiw, I don't exceed -6db when tracking.

Roland

siremoon said:

All DAWs have an initial learning curve to get started but if there's a DAW out there that has more comprehensive documentation, tutorials and support than Reaper then I haven't found it plus it is inexpensive to buy and available with all features on indefinite free trial.

As with most things the biggest cost is learning to use it. Think of how long you’ve spent learning to play guitar. I chose the Reaper route because of the support resources that are available, and that I’m less likely to be left wanting a feature than I might with a simpler DAW. Changing horses is a major investment in time.

Manuals. There’s a knack to reading manuals. Whether it’s on paper or on screen skim through to understand what’s in there, but don’t try to absorb details. When you need something you will have a rough idea of what it’s called or where to find it, and that’s the point when you can delve into the detail.

Sammy

octatonic said:

andy_k said:

Re-sample rate, 48k is used to give more headroom when recording and mixing,

Sorry but this isn't true.
Headroom is down to bit depth.
Higher sample rate doesn't give you more headroom, it gives you greater resolution.
There is virtual zero difference in terms of sound between 44.1 and 48k though, if all other factors are equal.

Historically, the reason most people tended to record at 48k is because 48k was the sample rate that was compatible with video.
Without going down a rabbit hole I would suggest recording at a sample rate you intend to stick with.
For instance if you have a huge sample library that is brought over from CD (so 44.1) then track at 44.1.
If you have already tracked at 48k then keep doing that.

Tracking at 48k and downsampling to 44.1 is not something I would recommend and I definitely would not want to go up from 44.1 to a higher sample rate.
FWIW I've always tracked at 44.1 until recently- I had zero complaints over the years about this.

There is an argument for tracking at higher sample rates- now I have a beast of a Mac Pro I tend to track at 96k.
My opinion, which is not backed up by any sort of empirical evidence, is plugins sound smoother at a higher sample rate, but most people don't have the sort of resources in their computer that will allow for a huge session.

So Octatonic, if I am aiming to do some videos a bit further down the line, once I have the basics of recording on Reaper, to YouTube etc, should I start with 48K or is 44.1K fine enough for reasonable videos? Plus if my Lenovo laptop has a sample rate of 44.1K &/or my older main computer has 44.1K using Window 7 on that, if I recorded at 48K would it not sound so good played back on them as they have different sample rates or doesn't it matter?  As if I can recall, my old MD8 Analog recorder just had the one 44.1K sampling rate, which was the Mini Disc standard, if I'm correct.

octatonic

Sammy said:

octatonic said:

andy_k said:

Re-sample rate, 48k is used to give more headroom when recording and mixing,

Sorry but this isn't true.
Headroom is down to bit depth.
Higher sample rate doesn't give you more headroom, it gives you greater resolution.
There is virtual zero difference in terms of sound between 44.1 and 48k though, if all other factors are equal.

Historically, the reason most people tended to record at 48k is because 48k was the sample rate that was compatible with video.
Without going down a rabbit hole I would suggest recording at a sample rate you intend to stick with.
For instance if you have a huge sample library that is brought over from CD (so 44.1) then track at 44.1.
If you have already tracked at 48k then keep doing that.

Tracking at 48k and downsampling to 44.1 is not something I would recommend and I definitely would not want to go up from 44.1 to a higher sample rate.
FWIW I've always tracked at 44.1 until recently- I had zero complaints over the years about this.

There is an argument for tracking at higher sample rates- now I have a beast of a Mac Pro I tend to track at 96k.
My opinion, which is not backed up by any sort of empirical evidence, is plugins sound smoother at a higher sample rate, but most people don't have the sort of resources in their computer that will allow for a huge session.

So Octatonic, if I am aiming to do some videos a bit further down the line, once I have the basics of recording on Reaper, to YouTube etc, should I start with 48K or is 44.1K fine enough for reasonable videos? Plus if my Lenovo laptop has a sample rate of 44.1K &/or my older main computer has 44.1K using Window 7 on that, if I recorded at 48K would it not sound so good played back on them as they have different sample rates or doesn't it matter?  As if I can recall, my old MD8 Analog recorder just had the one 44.1K sampling rate, which was the Mini Disc standard, if I'm correct.

When I say video I really meant 'video tape' and SMPTE.
These days it is much less of an issue, although 48khz would make the most sense if you are going to do a lot of non-linear video editing in FCP or Premiere etc.

Honestly, it is much much less of a hassle now to switch sample rates.
In the late 80's/90's when I started doing this it was a very big deal indeed.

andy_k

thanks for clarifiyng things octatonic, I did go down a bit of a rabbit hole myself with this kind of thing, the desire to get the best performance with less than perfect hardware made me do it.
I think one of the reasons I went for working at 48k whilst mixing, was some information I saw which explained the effect some plugins have of introducing harmonic distortion, which is producing harsh overtones at higher frequency. Eq can filter these out, but at 44k the slope of the eq will effect the audible range, ie, half the rate=22k, which when filtered brings some cutoff below 20k, which may describe some of the 'less smoothness' that you mention. (Dan Worrells Fabfilter vids )
Part of the explanation, is the development itself, 44k was simply double the accepted 22k standard (nyquist), and 48k was a perceived improvement-with the availability of more powerful hardware. 
Modern stuff can use 96k, or even 192k, which are doubles again, of 48k.
It is easy to just stick to 44k, which is where most source material comes in at, ie-CD or MP3, but if I am recording, I think there is a benefit to using the highest rate that is available to me--more headroom, or resolution, in my words.
I am using Reaper, which does any conversion under the hood, so I dont get to see some of the problems other users may experience, and my ears are old-so there is probably nothing audible to me, but I just like to know I am aiming for the best sound I can get, the final result is always something bounced out at 44k 16bit, or a 320 MP3, I am no expert by the way, just somebody who has had a few years experience. I always bow to greater knowledge.
cheers
andy k

Musicwolf

andy_k said:

It is easy to just stick to 44k, which is where most source material comes in at, ie-CD or MP3, but if I am recording, I think there is a benefit to using the highest rate that is available to me--more headroom, or resolution, in my words.

Just to be clear on the benefits / terminology.  Higher sample rates can lead to better audio quality but it is bit depth which gives you more headroom / resolution.  The theoretical dynamic range of 16 bit is 96dB vs 144dB for 24 bit.

octatonic

andy_k said:

thanks for clarifiyng things octatonic, I did go down a bit of a rabbit hole myself with this kind of thing, the desire to get the best performance with less than perfect hardware made me do it.
I think one of the reasons I went for working at 48k whilst mixing, was some information I saw which explained the effect some plugins have of introducing harmonic distortion, which is producing harsh overtones at higher frequency. Eq can filter these out, but at 44k the slope of the eq will effect the audible range, ie, half the rate=22k, which when filtered brings some cutoff below 20k, which may describe some of the 'less smoothness' that you mention. (Dan Worrells Fabfilter vids )
Part of the explanation, is the development itself, 44k was simply double the accepted 22k standard (nyquist), and 48k was a perceived improvement-with the availability of more powerful hardware. 
Modern stuff can use 96k, or even 192k, which are doubles again, of 48k.
It is easy to just stick to 44k, which is where most source material comes in at, ie-CD or MP3, but if I am recording, I think there is a benefit to using the highest rate that is available to me--more headroom, or resolution, in my words.
I am using Reaper, which does any conversion under the hood, so I dont get to see some of the problems other users may experience, and my ears are old-so there is probably nothing audible to me, but I just like to know I am aiming for the best sound I can get, the final result is always something bounced out at 44k 16bit, or a 320 MP3, I am no expert by the way, just somebody who has had a few years experience. I always bow to greater knowledge.
cheers
Andy k

Yes this is what I was talking about regarding smoothness of plugins at higher sample rates.

I really don't hear a difference between 44.1 and 48k, even with large sessions and a lot of processing.
Maybe someone with dog ears can- but 48 year old me cannot.
I *think I can* at higher sample rates, but I've not conducted any scientific tests to prove it.
It could be a placebo.

96k seems like the sweet spot if you can afford the DSP hit, which I currently can.

Musicwolf

I agree, I can't hear any difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz, but then my ears are even older at 56.  I haven't worked at 96kHz or even 192kHz but, from what I've read, there is some science behind why it would improve things during processing (especially if any pitch shifting is involved).

To be honest I'd achieve the biggest improvement in my recordings simply by getting the right notes in the right order.

You have to consider the whole recording chain.  As with any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link.  At the moment that link is me (either as performer or Engineer) but after that there's a long list of items (room acoustics, monitors, mics etc) before I get to sample rate and bit depth.

Sammy

So in a nutshell if I stick with 44.1K to record, it won't matter if my computer is a different sample rate, the videosoftware is say 48K everything will work and sound together okay for the avearge ear with me using  44.1K on recordings and I won't have to change different sample rates etc to match on each piece of equipment used? Am I correct, or would I have to alter the sample rates to match on each item in the chain used!

andy_k

You should just check that your Reaper project is using the same setting as your interface, my scarlett has settings, which sometimes flip when I use different software- you will see little blue icons on waveforms if Reaper  has converted anything.
I choose to work at 48k, so my Reaper session has this as a default setting, sometimes stuff can mess up if different sample rates are mixed in a session (which is to be avoided). Reaper is very good at doing conversion in the background, and you have to learn to trust your ears.
I started a thread somewhere on here, where out of boredom I remixed a track and converted mp3 to various states, which is obviously a stupid thing to do--despite multiple messing about, the final result was still pretty good, not as bad as I was expecting- although my own monitoring is less than perfect, which was the point-to ask others to point out areas where it sounded degraded or bad, didn't get any response really, so I guess the topic is not that exciting.

Sammy

andy_k said:

You should just check that your Reaper project is using the same setting as your interface, my scarlett has settings, which sometimes flip when I use different software- you will see little blue icons on waveforms if Reaper  has converted anything.
I choose to work at 48k, so my Reaper session has this as a default setting, sometimes stuff can mess up if different sample rates are mixed in a session (which is to be avoided). Reaper is very good at doing conversion in the background, and you have to learn to trust your ears.
I started a thread somewhere on here, where out of boredom I remixed a track and converted mp3 to various states, which is obviously a stupid thing to do--despite multiple messing about, the final result was still pretty good, not as bad as I was expecting- although my own monitoring is less than perfect, which was the point-to ask others to point out areas where it sounded degraded or bad, didn't get any response really, so I guess the topic is not that exciting.

Thanks Andy, so you need to really keep everything at the same sample rate, so just to confirm if I stay with 44.1K, when I want to add music to a video, say for Youtube, are the video sample rates also able to work at 44.1K! As somewhere along the line, when watching one of the training videos, I am sure they mentioned if you were going to put your recordings to videos at a later stage, you would really need 48K!  Or can you set video sample rates to 44.1K to match the recordings, without much loss of picture quality?

Sammy

Re my above query in respect of sample rates, of putting recordings to videos, could someone please enlighten me on this before I go any further. Also this buffer setting re the latency aspect, is also confusing, as on one of the video learnings on Reaper someone advised me to view in my post, which is very good and informative by the way, they recommend 48K with 128 buffering, whilst other known Reaper user videos advise 44.1K at either 256 or 512 settings! 

Just to advise I am using the Focusrite Scarlett  212 Studio 3rd Gen, which accordingly advises " The 3rd gen Scarlett’s feature super-low latency, and let you monitor with native plug-in effects in real-time" so should I have to worry about the buffering anyway and just leave it at 256 or 512? Thanks 

Musicwolf

Sammy said:

Just to advise I am using the Focusrite Scarlett  212 Studio 3rd Gen, which accordingly advises " The 3rd gen Scarlett’s feature super-low latency, and let you monitor with native plug-in effects in real-time" so should I have to worry about the buffering anyway and just leave it at 256 or 512? Thanks 

I've just had a very quick look at the Scarlett online (if somebody has first hand experience of this please correct me as needed).

The Scarlett features direct monitoring which will be almost latency free and will not be influenced by buffer size.  The super-low latency / plug in effects is, I suspect, something else.  This is probably a case of 'low latency if your computer can record with low buffer sizes'.

Direct monitoring means that you are hearing the input signal directly (without it going through your computer / DAW).  Some Audio Interfaces have built in digital effects (my Steinberg UR824 has a couple) which are also accessible without going through the DAW but the majority do not.

To use plug in effects you therefore have to go through the DAW and that adds latency.  The bigger the buffer size the longer the latency.  Bigger buffer sizes reduce the likelyhood of clicks and pops in the recording so it's a matter of finding the balance.