soundfiles from protools session playback too fast

[mr c deckard]

a project came in that was originally recorded on da-88's (2 for 16
tracks). some months ago, the band had the tracks transferred into
protools. evidently, the guy had one da-88 and recorded 8 tracks at a
time. the tracks came to me via dvd-rom, mac format. the audio
tracks are mono .aiff 44.1/16 bit. there are 16 files, one per audio
track from the da-88's.

i run dp3 with a motu pci-324 and 2408 mkI. i loaded the files into
dp3 and lined up the first 8 tracks with the second 8 tracks. no
problem. everything's fine.

except the band noticed that the tracks are playing back too fast, the
pitch and duration are sped up about a half-step. it's a very similar
factor as 44.1/48 . . .

i opened up one of the files in sound forge (as a .raw file) on a
windows machine. it's still fast, so i don't suspect my hardware.

here's the question -- is there info in the protools file to cause
protools to play it at the correct speed? is there somesort of sample
rate issue between the da-88's and protools? between protools and
dp3?

if the original da-88 was at 48k, and he transered it over at 44.1k,
it seems like it would be slower, not faster.

any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, i'm kinda at a loss.

thanks
chris deckard
saint louis mo

(ps. we're trying to get some da-88's in here to bypass the whole
mess since we're trying to end up on 1" 16track . . . )

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(mr c deckard) wrote:

> a project came in that was originally recorded on da-88's (2 for 16
> tracks). some months ago, the band had the tracks transferred into
> protools. evidently, the guy had one da-88 and recorded 8 tracks at a
> time. the tracks came to me via dvd-rom, mac format. the audio
> tracks are mono .aiff 44.1/16 bit. there are 16 files, one per audio
> track from the da-88's.
>
> i run dp3 with a motu pci-324 and 2408 mkI. i loaded the files into
> dp3 and lined up the first 8 tracks with the second 8 tracks. no
> problem. everything's fine.
>
> except the band noticed that the tracks are playing back too fast, the
> pitch and duration are sped up about a half-step. it's a very similar
> factor as 44.1/48 . . .
>
> i opened up one of the files in sound forge (as a .raw file) on a
> windows machine. it's still fast, so i don't suspect my hardware.
>
> here's the question -- is there info in the protools file to cause
> protools to play it at the correct speed? is there somesort of sample
> rate issue between the da-88's and protools? between protools and
> dp3?
>
> if the original da-88 was at 48k, and he transered it over at 44.1k,
> it seems like it would be slower, not faster.
>
> any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, i'm kinda at a loss.
>
> thanks
> chris deckard
> saint louis mo
>
> (ps. we're trying to get some da-88's in here to bypass the whole
> mess since we're trying to end up on 1" 16track . . . )


Be sure your ProTools Hardware Setup is set to internal 44.1 kHz clock and not
external where it might be coming from a 48kHz source.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[mr c deckard]

that's the only thing i can think of -- a 44.1k file was recorded with
a clock source of 48k, and saved as a 44.1k .aiff file.

oh well, turns out we can get the da-88's here (and the band wasted
$200 on a useless xfer).

cd /..




>
> Be sure your ProTools Hardware Setup is set to internal 44.1 kHz clock and not
> external where it might be coming from a 48kHz source.
>
> -Jay

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(mr c deckard) wrote:
>if the original da-88 was at 48k, and he transered it over at 44.1k,
>it seems like it would be slower, not faster.

FMT&CMS, but I think it would make them play faster.

Regards,

Ty

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Sean R. Kerns]

This exact thing happened to me a couple of years ago. The session was
supposed to be 48K, and we re-sampled to 44.1 on the bounce, but the files
played too fast. ProTools apparently thought it was at 48K, but was really
at 44.1, and things got messed up.
The producer "fixed" the problem by externally clocking at 44.1 minus the
difference between 44.1 and 48. I also later discovered that the problem
could've been fixed by simply changing the info in the file headers of the
bounced files.

Sean

"mr c deckard" > wrote in message
om...
> that's the only thing i can think of -- a 44.1k file was recorded with
> a clock source of 48k, and saved as a 44.1k .aiff file.
>
> oh well, turns out we can get the da-88's here (and the band wasted
> $200 on a useless xfer).
>
> cd /..
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Be sure your ProTools Hardware Setup is set to internal 44.1 kHz clock
and not
> > external where it might be coming from a 48kHz source.
> >
> > -Jay

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Sean R. Kerns"
> wrote:
>This exact thing happened to me a couple of years ago. The session was
>supposed to be 48K, and we re-sampled to 44.1 on the bounce, but the files
>played too fast. ProTools apparently thought it was at 48K, but was really
>at 44.1, and things got messed up.
>The producer "fixed" the problem by externally clocking at 44.1 minus the
>difference between 44.1 and 48. I also later discovered that the problem
>could've been fixed by simply changing the info in the file headers of the
>bounced files.
>
>Sean

Hmm, how about a tuturial on how to do that Sean?

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Arny Krueger]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message

> In Article >, "Sean R. Kerns"
> > wrote:
>> This exact thing happened to me a couple of years ago. The session
>> was supposed to be 48K, and we re-sampled to 44.1 on the bounce, but
>> the files played too fast. ProTools apparently thought it was at
>> 48K, but was really at 44.1, and things got messed up.
>> The producer "fixed" the problem by externally clocking at 44.1
>> minus the difference between 44.1 and 48. I also later discovered
>> that the problem could've been fixed by simply changing the info in
>> the file headers of the bounced files.

>> Sean

> Hmm, how about a tuturial on how to do that Sean?

Open file with Audition.

Edit, Adjust Sample Rate, type 44100 if its not already in the list. click
OK

Save

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Arny Krueger"

>Open file with Audition.
>
>Edit, Adjust Sample Rate, type 44100 if its not already in the list. click
>OK
>
>Save


Hmm, sounds perfect. Where's "Audition?"

Regards,

Ty

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford