|
Post by chessparov on Dec 2, 2019 14:38:41 GMT -6
Title says it all... Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 2, 2019 14:50:10 GMT -6
24/96, just seems clearer and more open.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 2, 2019 15:03:29 GMT -6
32bit/48k, because that's what works best on my CPU
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 2, 2019 15:21:46 GMT -6
24/88 because I can't tell a difference between 88 and 96k but 88 uses less disk space.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Dec 2, 2019 15:24:33 GMT -6
24/48 after a long time of 24/44.1. 48 might sound slightly better with plugins that don’t oversample.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 2, 2019 15:54:36 GMT -6
24/88. If I'm bouncing mixes, then 32 float. If a mix is coming in analog, 24. No value in 32 unless capturing internal resolution rather than converters. Get the new 32 bit converter tech in everything, that will change.......
All the newer converters I've used sound ok at 48 for most things, so I'm less picky about it. All the older converters I had did not sound great at 44.1/48 compared to higher rates, cymbals kinda sucked, as did acoustic instruments.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Dec 2, 2019 16:12:00 GMT -6
For home recording purposes, I've stayed-so far-at 16/44.1
I'm thinking the main benefit of 24/44.1, is totally avoiding the need of front end compression. Not sure if 24/48 is worth the difference on simple stuff.
I may getting into more plugins, next year. So hoping 24/48 will be fine.
Thanks again for your responses. BTW I have the nice-at my level-Cirrus Logic converters, in my Mackie Blackjack. Chris
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Dec 2, 2019 16:27:20 GMT -6
For home recording purposes, I've stayed-so far-at 16/44.1 I'm thinking the main benefit of 24/44.1, is totally avoiding the need of front end compression. Not sure if 24/48 is worth the difference on simple stuff. I may getting into more plugins, next year. So hoping 24/48 will be fine. Thanks again for your responses. BTW I have the nice-at my level-Cirrus Logic converters, in my Mackie Blackjack. Chris You should really go to 24-bit. So many advantages over 16-bit!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 2, 2019 16:44:45 GMT -6
32float/96. Sounds better than 44.1 or 48 and hard drive space is cheap. Also, on those rare occasions where I might do ITB processing, most plugins work better at 96.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Dec 2, 2019 16:47:37 GMT -6
24/48 still, after all these years
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Dec 2, 2019 17:03:53 GMT -6
24/48 most of the time. Just mixed 6 songs tracked at 24/88, sounds fine too.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 2, 2019 17:53:53 GMT -6
32/96
and 32/384
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Dec 2, 2019 18:13:17 GMT -6
Hmm... No 36/24/36 yet? Chris
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Dec 3, 2019 1:12:34 GMT -6
24/96 but other studios do bitch that I am wasting space. I have always figured that like 4k I can always down sample to lower but keep a copy of higher resolution just in case.
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Dec 3, 2019 2:20:40 GMT -6
24/96 for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Dec 3, 2019 2:27:40 GMT -6
24/88. If I'm bouncing mixes, then 32 float. If a mix is coming in analog, 24. No value in 32 unless capturing internal resolution rather than converters. Get the new 32 bit converter tech in everything, that will change........ Indeed. Those who are recording (A to D) at 32bit are wasting drive space. (Unless you have 32 bit converters.)
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 3, 2019 7:48:42 GMT -6
24/96 but other studios do bitch that I am wasting space. Other studios can shut the hell up. : ) It's funny how many amateur laptop mastering engineers have come back saying they can't play my hi-res files and "I've done it wrong". Actually it's not funny at all, it's just sad.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 3, 2019 9:10:27 GMT -6
I prefer 24/96, but us 48k because I get too many issues using 96k. I might try again.. I'm recently bought a late 2015 iMac i7 now w/ 32 g DDR3 and a Fusion SSD Drive. I haven't tried a new 96k session with it yet. Should that be enough firepower for a midsize session?
Something like 24 tracks and 1-4 plugs per track, with 4 or 5 plugs on the 2 bus. I use my reverbs on a bus.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 3, 2019 10:10:37 GMT -6
24 96. Rendering 32bit.
I'll capture at 32bit sometimes if there's enough space. Its not for increased resolution, I'll choose 32 hoping there's less work for the CPU to do.. ALSO mainly hoping that whatever is recorded is exactly how it will sound when played back. If I decided to work in fixed 24bit then I would just leave it at 24.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Dec 3, 2019 10:12:34 GMT -6
I know everyone has an opinion on this and some are adamant that their preference is the best. From reading countless threads over the last couple decades, it becomes almost a religion. With good converters, I don't think many of us could tell the difference between 48/24 and 96/24. You can disagree, but I think moving the snare mic half an inch is going to make more difference to a mix. Converters are so good at this point that is is ridiculous to get hung up on it. Here's a couple thoughts: 1) If I was doing classical, I would probably opt for 96/24. Why? Because it's often sparse with limited track count. 2) If I was mixing OTB, I "might" think about 96/24, but in the stuff I produce, I wouldn't think anyone could hear the difference. 3) I mix ITB and 44.1/24 or 48/24 are what I use and my mixes do not suffer from the sample rate. If the mix sucks, I know where to look. It's not the gear. 4) Try mixing a 150-200 track project ITB with 96/24. Impossible without a ton of bouncing and rendering in place. That would be a deal breaker for me right there. 5) No one, I mean no one, cares about this stuff except for us geeks. Is the song good? That's all anyone really cares about. No one cares how it was recorded... except us. Lots of great songs were recorded in less than optimal conditions and still made a huge impact.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Dec 3, 2019 10:20:19 GMT -6
I prefer 24/96, but us 48k because I get too many issues using 96k. I might try again.. I'm recently bought a late 2015 iMac i7 now w/ 32 g DDR3 and a Fusion SSD Drive. I haven't tried a new 96k session with it yet. Should that be enough firepower for a midsize session? Something like 24 tracks and 1-4 plugs per track, with 4 or 5 plugs on the 2 bus. I use my reverbs on a bus. Depends on the plugs and what the processor is. Try doing the test at cpu.userbenchmark.com The Ryzen 3960x is probably the ultimate for this sort of thing nowadays. It has the single core power of the 9900k and a 64 multicore score of over 4100(twice the 1950x threadripper and about 4x more than a Ryzen 1700 overclocked). They used to just have single core measurements and the 64 core listed as "multicore", so that's what I go by. cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-3960X/4028vsm969111I started with a 2320 processor that scored 80 and 300 respectively. Could barely do anything with that at 88/96. A Z800 workstation that was something like 75 and 1100 was a massive improvement as long as turbo boost was on(think it has dual Xeon x5670 chips). Then we got a 6700 based system that hit 107 and 570. Sometimes the higher single core could enable me to run more instances of certain plugs than the Z800, but it couldn't run anywhere as many instances of plugs in general as the Z800 overall. My newest is a Ryzen 1700 system that scored around 110 and 1250 after overclocking. I can run 45-50 tracks along with a few auxes, a pre-master aux, and a master fader. A lot of those will have more than 5 plugs on them. The UAD dsp can help, it depends on where stuff is placed. I'm really only running out of cpu when I'm loading multiple mono tracks and stereo auxes with 7-10 plugins each. And it's not on the big sessions where I run out. It's smaller sessions where the vocals and/or instruments were bare bones and I have to add a lot to them. I run a lot of BX SSL E, Phoenix, Autotune Pro, Pro Q-2, Dopamine, Tube Tech MKII, Softube Trident, Overloud EQ84, and a couple other things routinely. For native effects, it's usually stuff like Seventh Heaven Pro, Tsar-1, EC-300, and X-verb. Most of my fx are UAD. On the master fader the native I'm using is usually Punish, VSE-2, VSM-3, and DS1-MK3. If you look at the Waves server comparisons, you'll notice that they all pretty much run the same amount of H-Reverb instances. I've written about these a few times on forums and maybe on my site, but the best processor is in the Extreme server and is about on par with a 6700k. The single core measurement was about 34% higher than on the Impact server. Looks like the Extreme Server has a 4790k that hits 122 and 624. The Ryzen 3960x has a 573% advantage in the 64 core score, so I bet you could run 200-300 track sessions with one of those. It'd be interesting to see if the 3960x could run many more H-Reverbs than the Extreme Server since the 3960x's single core is only about 20 points higher. If you look at their individual links, you'll find the H-Reverb instance counts there. www.waves.com/compare-serversA lot of the Waves stuff is so efficient it can run hundreds of instances on the relatively weak Impact server. The 4150 chip in it scored around 93 and 253, so it's sorta like a 2320 level thing. Looking at the Waves instance counts can sorta give you an idea as to what you can get away with running. Sometimes I can run 256 buffers with a few mono tracks, a few stereo auxes, and a pre-master aux and master fader. When I do 40 some track mixes, I usually only use 1-3 efficient plugins on instrument tracks. If I can get away using only an instance of BX SSL E and nothing else on a track, I'll try to do that. Usually I'll run a 2040 buffer and I've not worked below 88k in over 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 3, 2019 11:03:03 GMT -6
I have a 2015 macbook pro that I track with: 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
I started going 96kHz a few years ago, I haven't noticed any performance differences.
But I always go to my PC for mixing large projects (things over 60 tracks). I also only use plugins like standard EQ, gates, Reaverb IR's, delays, bus compressors. a few other standard plugins. Limited amount of CPU hogs and VSTi's are occasional.
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 3, 2019 11:18:34 GMT -6
24-Bit/44.1kHz. Would only go higher for something really open and acoustic with a lower track count. I’ve tried higher sample rates and not achieved any better sonics than I get with 44.1
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 3, 2019 11:50:57 GMT -6
24-Bit/44.1kHz. Would only go higher for something really open and acoustic with a lower track count. I’ve tried higher sample rates and not achieved any better sonics than I get with 44.1 I'm still there too dr. I have not tried higher sampling rates for awhile, but in the past, the SR conversion algorithms were so ugly that it didn't make sense to me to record at a different rate than I had to deliver in. For better or worse, mostly, 44.1k is still the defacto standard delivery SR. Unless you're working in Film/TV and there it's 48k. I like 48k a bit better, and most of my stuff ends up on TV, but I haven't really changed over completely. Creature of habit.....
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 3, 2019 13:07:55 GMT -6
24-Bit/44.1kHz. Would only go higher for something really open and acoustic with a lower track count. I’ve tried higher sample rates and not achieved any better sonics than I get with 44.1 I'm still there too dr. I have not tried higher sampling rates for awhile, but in the past, the SR conversion algorithms were so ugly that it didn't make sense to me to record at a different rate than I had to deliver in. For better or worse, mostly, 44.1k is still the defacto standard delivery SR. Unless you're working in Film/TV and there it's 48k. I like 48k a bit better, and most of my stuff ends up on TV, but I haven't really changed over completely. Creature of habit..... Yeah man... Even the best SRC Algorithms available today still leave me disappointed after the conversion
|
|