Hello, anybody here, using mac studio running 96khz sessions? wonder, how smooth it is...?

Cubase
1

Hello,

I am interested in getting a new mac studio, and just wondering whether, any member here can chime in and review on its performance, esp on 96 khz projects…?

So, my mac mini intel maxed out can run 48 khz session easy… even 100 tracks but um, with 96 khz sessions, it is struggling a bit… so I am thinking of getting a new mac studio.

Does it get extremely better and smoother and… (silent-er…?)?

haha…
thanks! I just could not find much info especially when it comes down to running 96 khz sessions, cause still most engineers run in 48 k (?) I think?

Thanks in advance!

*I hope I made myself clear :slight_smile:

2

Hi,

Well, doubling the sample rate requires twice the CPU usage, so if performance maxes out at 100 tracks at 48 kHz on a particular project, it will max out at roughly 50 tracks at 96 kHz, with the same buffer settings.

Only a faster CPU with help in this case.

1 Like
3

Higher CPU core count should also help

1 Like
4

I recently mixed a 96KHz project on m1 mini, apollo x4 with asio buffersize of 256 with around 80 audio tracks and 20 FX/groups, maybe 20 to 30 tracks are playing at a time. (it was just mixing, used only 1 or 2 vsti for extra sounds). When I reached vocal tracks, I had to freeze several channels to make more room but overall it was quite impressive. I imagine it will be much more powerful on a mac studio.

Screenshot 2022-12-17 at 11.48.34
Screenshot 2022-12-17 at 11.48.341082×1152 365 KB

2 Likes
5

aha! such a practical answer that I was looking for! yeah yeah! I was just wondering about Cubase specifically! also slightly worried about plugins and daw and whatnot, whether it all have been natively integrated well, so whether it is my time to take the shot at new mac studio even modest max model :slight_smile:

Cheers! it now became more convincing! man! atm, my mac mini is 64gb ram, intel chip 3.2i7 2018 latest model before m1.
So yeah, it kinda… got old quickly haha…

Big decision for me to… stick and record my material in 96k… ← this needs more powerful machine unfortunately…

Thank you Takashi san!

6

I have to admit - I’m curious what your use case and/or preference is for recording in 96k on 100 tracks.

From everything I’ve been reading over more recent time frames, 48k is plenty for music work, even having a bit of spare room to avoid aliasing artifacts while using various fx plugins and/or. And in addition to that, many of the decent modern plugins don’t even seem to suffer much from those kinds of artifacts anymore.

And I can understand possibly recording something at high sample rates, if one intends to slow it down by factors of 2 or more. But that would seem to be something one would more typically do for a subset of source materials, rather than for every track in full?

I can imagine more science type of recordings with at very high rates, so one can do analysis on materials beyond audible range. But I haven’t heard of many examples where someone would work with 100 tracks in that kind of setting?

So do you have a different use case than music production for human consumption, or am I missing something in my reading trails about high sample rate recording?

7

Increase your sample buffer, double compare to your setting at 48kh. For example: 512 instead of 256. Everything should be fine.

8

Hello, Nico5!

Please firstly excuse for my ignorance!
Just before this project I am working on, I have been working at 48khz-32bit (float) on Cubase pro without much CPU hardship :slight_smile:

But I was happened to read and saw few videos explaining some engineers record their vocal / instrument material at highest sample rate as possible for the best sonic result?

So, that tickled me to record my vocal at 96k :slight_smile:

At first, I’ve done that without any issue on Cubase since I exported demo Instrumental track as 2-track WAV anyway :slight_smile:

So done recording Lead and BG vocals at 96k and I really really liked the quality of the recording at 96k (compared to 48k)… haha… some say human cannot tell the difference but I will be as honest as I can be! lol I genuinely liked 96k recording detail!..

So, till this part was all good! in my mind, I then told myself!
'Ok, recording is done at best on my side, now let’s 'downsample to 48k so I can start mixing!)
*Because music production (beat) was finished at 48k.

fast-forward,

  1. Done comping vocal recording + BG recording
  2. Downsampled it
  3. Imported to 48k instrumental project for detailed mixing

THEN… I just did not like how it sound… I know it may sound absurd, but maybe due to downsampling algorithm…? (I’ve used normal Cubase default one)

So, what I did, was instead (haha…) upsampled all other instrumental tracks after quickly rough-mixing (including Kick, Snare, Hats, Keys, Synths, Gtr etc)

Long-story short, I preferred this way, also because I did not have to convert my vocal recordings? because I felt vocal would be the most important thing and less conversion better right…?

I mean, yes, I was not smart enough to go back and forth, but Nico5,
could you please recommend the best way…? if you think 96k sessions are not worth it…?

But all in all, I do like my recording at 96k through my UFX ii. Would I be hearing the same thing, and just ‘feels’ better…? Sorry for any confusion…

9

Oh yes, I increased my buffer max! so I mean, I do not record 100s of tracks at 96k I meant, cause I recorded my vocal at 96k I upsampled in the middle of production all my inst tracks from 48k to 96k then started to mix at 96k, so that made me to have tracks at 96k.

10

Hi @JohnShin

There are many articles that can explain it much better than I can, so if you search for 48kHz vs 96 kHz, you’ll find some good explanations.

If the extra computer cost isn’t much of a problem for you, then why not record at 96kHz. It’s a little like driving a Ferrari to go for grocery shopping. :slight_smile:

I’m perfectly happy with recording at 48 kHz, because I just wouldn’t be able to hear any difference at 96KHz and neither would my microphones, studio monitors and headphones. So for me it’s just not worth the extra money.

But if you can really hear a difference, then do whatever feels better while you make music. :+1:

2 Likes
11

Right, I was against it for past 5~6 years, like, humans cannot hear the difference as they all say… so I was happy at 48k then I did 2 projects at 96k. Recording and mixing at 96 which convinced me that, with my setup, ‘surprisingly’ I just liked it better… especially the vocal recording.

I know… I may be wasting CPU power on something nobody could hear/feel. But yeah… strange…
like 99 out of 100 people around me say, don’t bother…

But that debate is for another haha… I got my answer that, mac studio would be powerful for any situation I hope :slight_smile:

1 Like
12

Some audio interfaces can record up to 35 kHz or more (instead of the usual 20 kHz) when their sample rate is set to 88.2 kHz or higher, in order to benefit for better recording quality.

If your interface can only do 20 kHz no matter the SR, then it won’t improve anything. It’s the same as recording at 48 kHz and upsampling the files to 96 kHz before starting to edit. This won’t restore frequencies that were not there before.

However some good converters can benefit from higher SR, even if the max frequency is 20 kHz, as they will be able the capture the transients in a more detailed way.

Still the biggest advantage of using a higher SR is to increase the headroom and reduce aliasing when you process your audio. But that’s another topic. Many plugins now have internal oversampling, and for this reason you can keep using 48 kHz without worrying.

13

Thanks! I… have ufx 2? (I’ve been using UFX mk1 before, just RME fan here hehe), it is a decent unit and I do feel that way… not a trick but ‘detail’ esp around the high when I record my vocal. So… I guess what I heard was true(?).

So yeah! I was ‘not’ totally wrong(?)/or misunderstood about it?? I guess?? haha…

To me, the detail is different. Though mixing at 96k is painful at the moment.

So I also tested myself downsampling all my 96k vocal tracks down to 48k and that also did not feel the same… so yeah… all people around me also discourage me not to work at 96k but I am only one hearing the difference… so I am still skeptical. Perhaps, UFX unit’s SR of 48k and 96k sonic clarity may differ…

14

This is true when you are listening to the finished product, it’s very hard to distinguish between them just by listening. But for plugin/calculation, I think it’s a bit different story. You know most of UAD (since 33609 a long time ago) are oversampled to 4xFS, and since they started doing this, a lot of companies followed. Like PA, for example, many of their product allows you to set an oversample rate. Even if you can only hear less than Nyquist of 1xFS, calculating at a higher sample rate makes difference. (Differences between e.g. the UAD33609 and UAD33609SE are not so hard to spot, their difference is just the oversampling on 33609 and none for SE, that’s 4xFS against 1x, though.)
If the host is running at 2xFS, all the plugins are also working at the rate. It’s hard to imagine that does not make any perceivable difference.

I usually work in 48K unless clients send me 96K project so sometimes I work in that rate, EQs like studioEQ, Frequency and others as well as various saturators feel a bit different for sure (cannot say which is better though.).

2 Likes
15

I was under the impression, that most of the better coded plugins in recent years have overcome such negative side effects by performing additional mitigating processing internally before outputting the sound?

I would do it exactly the same :+1:

2 Likes
16

Yes, there are so many plug-in these days does oversampling, but there are also so many which doesn’t. You can’t tell that from the behavior but I believe stock EQs, saturators and most others don’t.
If you are using only those good plugins, then there may not be perceivable difference but I still use a lot of classic plugins from the last decades partly because it’s habit and I know most of them do not oversample.
Working in 2xFS changes behavior of all those.

2 Likes
17

For me the motivation of using 96 khz is audio quality. Not so much about the recording, but for the plugins used. Most plugins that have some non linear have very poor handling of the aliasing artefacts they generate. You get better quality out of your plugins. And in Cubase there is no other choice than run your hole project in high rate even if it is only one plugin that really need it. Other DAW’s have better solutions of this for example reaper can oversample selected plugins and still run the project in 44.1 or 48 khz. I think other DAWs including Cubase will follow. (They have too, otherwise reaper will always win audio quality shoot out, and audio quality is the one of the most fundamental properties of a DAW )

1 Like
18

Right… I thought I was hearing wrong all along… but you said everything I wanted to say in the first place but clearer haha… what I intended to say :frowning:

  1. Recording at 96k clearly has more ‘clarity’
  2. I am sure I am also using my ‘must’ plugins throughout mixing and ‘those’ have poor handling for sure… so end result 48k mix vs 96k mix <---- 96k wins for me…

So, I am planning on getting Mac Studio base model <— I still worry though, cause I am the only one who can test its power with my workflow and my go-to plugins and see how it handles and compares to my current Mac Mini 2018 3.2hz i7 (4-core I believe) 64gb ram intel chip model…

But thanks! I now am certain that I will be sticking to 96k with my UFX ii.
For possibly next 2~3 years.

But yeah, at 48k sample rate, my mac mini still rocks!!..

I am not of course, here to say right or wrong but I just want to make sure I was not mistakenly hearing things (haha…)

Hopefully we get that feature soon! but still recording at 96k also is a major reason for me.