|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 3, 2019 14:07:36 GMT -6
Huh surprised you two are at such a low res and using so much analog gear. When I use outboard the difference is huge with a higher sample rate.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 3, 2019 15:23:28 GMT -6
With so much of audio being related to video, I can't understand why anyone would still be at 44.1 and not 48.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 3, 2019 15:35:32 GMT -6
With so much of audio being related to video, I can't understand why anyone would still be at 44.1 and not 48. Physical CD's. Believe it or not, they still get made. But yeah, that's a good point.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 3, 2019 15:42:27 GMT -6
With so much of audio being related to video, I can't understand why anyone would still be at 44.1 and not 48. Physical CD's. Believe it or not, they still get made. But yeah, that's a good point. I'd rather work at 48 and downsample for CD than upsample for video.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 3, 2019 15:54:30 GMT -6
Physical CD's. Believe it or not, they still get made. But yeah, that's a good point. I'd rather work at 48 and downsample for CD than upsample for video. What are you using for downsampling? My experience has been ugly. Plus, music for vid tends to get buried under Dialog and SFX, so who cares what it sounds like upsampled.
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 3, 2019 17:26:43 GMT -6
My concern is to “ End up with What I Hear” - and when downsampling, there is loss. All that hard work to get it right where you want it and then once it is downsampled and delivered to the consumer it has changed drastically. I want my hard work to show and be heard. That has happened most effectively by staying at 44.1kHz. I’ve fooled a lot of audiophiles who think I mix at higher sample rates. I’ve found that higher sample rates capture more hi frequencies. And in today’s digital world, I end up eliminating a lot of that HF information because it just strains the ear and sounds too digital and harsh. In the end, 24-bit 44.1kHz continues to provide me more than enough detail and ample LF/HF information to create audiophile quality mixes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 17:51:28 GMT -6
24/48. No rhyme or reason to it. Just what I default to. I may explore trying higher sample rates, but given the constant punch in the stones Pro Tools is with the crashing and CPU spikes and all that, I'm not sure it would help things enough to justify the headaches.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 3, 2019 20:17:35 GMT -6
I can't pass stuff back and forth digital to analog to digital at low rates and not hear it go to shit. Conversion at mastering from high rates has ALWAYS won that test in my personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 4, 2019 10:15:20 GMT -6
I think it's technically suspect to use 44.1 to avoid SRC--since all modern converters and most plugs ins worth a shit will be using (relatively) more lossy SRC at the channel and (in plug in case) bus level. Actual mastering SRC, IME, obviously--can be tricky going 48 to 44....but, it's child's play to go 88 or 96 to 44. Easily yielding a better 44.1 than white knuckle engineering it all at 44.1, constantly spinning dials to "fix" stuff....which brings me to the most succinct and untechnical answer I can give:
What? 24/96 or 32/96 is my current depending on app--Mixbus has a known issue with certain functions if not in their native FP format.... I used 24/88.2 for many years...I can't hear any difference in 88 vs 96 in the production process really--but, the end result being 24/96 is important for delivery. While I can take a 24/88 master and MAKE 48khz AAC that come really close (meaning as good as from the 96), that's not how streaming services and consumer computer OSs seem to work. 88 WILL get turned to 44 and 96 to 48....and to my ear, even a 48khz AAC will sound better than linear CD. Vinyl is back because 44.1 was always a turd, IMO.
Why? Because EVERYTHING I do is easier. End to end--from VIs having less latency under my fingers to mic captures not being all "Pet Semetery" on me....to being able to use digital DSP--clean or analog modeled to mix....to delivering a 24/96 single file that EASILY (with whatever real time dumbass SRC) streams 24/48 to an iPhone or makes 48khz ACC that sounds (to my ear) largely BETTER than CD....there's nothing that's NOT easier**....ON ME, the engineer. I say it that way--because I can an have used lower sample rates to good ends, but it's like pulling teeth and REQUIRES analog kit in the mix and/or mastering process to "get there". My laptop can make better recordings than the racks of analog kit I had for years band aiding single rate digital mixing. THAT, my friends is progress.
**though....virtual instruments, it should be said are not straight DSP and DO tend to use exponentially more resources to make double rate. Unlike audio plug ins where it's pretty predictable being either LESS than 48 (due to internal defeating of resampling at 96) or exactly double (because it's NOT resampling)....VIs tend to get....much more quirky in performance. So, maybe "mostly nothing"....but, as an AUDIO engineer, nothing that's not easier.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 4, 2019 11:06:17 GMT -6
Haha!!! "Technically Suspect"? Well, it's not the worst thing I've ever been called. But I'd like to see you call drsax that to his face. . Bring your Billboard top 10's and Grammy's with you........ I say....use whatever works. <thumbsup> Some of my favorite records were made 44.1/16. Go figure....
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 4, 2019 13:24:53 GMT -6
That would be an interesting discussion point: I can't NAME a record made at 16/44. I can't name many records (I like) made at 24/44....and of those, 100% were mixed and mastered analog. So, I don't see that kind of thing as contradictory to my experience.
...yet, I'd venture 90%+ of people asking this question are mixing digitally. Smaller percentage mastering digitally, as well. IME, this working in a largely synchronous environment changes the requirements.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Dec 4, 2019 13:38:15 GMT -6
James Taylor "Hourglass". Won the Grammy, for best engineered. Final answer for me, 24/44.1. Partly due to upcoming 44.1 Sample use & OK-ish level room sonics. May occasionally have "sell from the stage" signed CD's too, next year. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Dec 4, 2019 14:30:11 GMT -6
Has anyone who sticks with 24/44.1 due to the disappointment of the down-conversion into a final "consumer-grade" product ever tried using AirWindows' Dithers?
Not Just Another Dither 24 & Not Just Another CD (16bit) come to mind.
Just curious,
Chad
PS: The only issue is... I don't believe the AirWindows plugins are ProTools compatible.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Dec 4, 2019 14:52:32 GMT -6
I can't NAME a record made at 16/44. Any record made on Pro Tools prior to 1997, when ProTools 24 was introduced, is 16/44.1. Any record made on Sony digital U-Matic (Sony PCM-1600, 1610, 1630), available in 1979. Bruce Springsteen's "The River" comes to mind. Not my favorite sonically. You could probably look up the Grammys for best engineered album for, say, 1990-1997 and they are almost guaranteed to be 16/44.1 recordings.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 4, 2019 14:58:20 GMT -6
Has anyone who sticks with 24/44.1 due to the disappointment of the down-conversion into a final "consumer-grade" product ever tried using AirWindows' Dithers? Not Just Another Dither 24 & Not Just Another CD (16bit) come to mind. Just curious, Chad PS: The only issue is... I don't believe the AirWindows plugins are ProTools compatible. They aren't PT comparable, but Dither is only one factor here. What we're mostly talking about is Sample Rate Conversion which is a lossy process that can leave ugly artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 4, 2019 15:03:04 GMT -6
I can't NAME a record made at 16/44. . The ones that immediately come to mind : the first few Seal records with Trevor Horn. Brilliant. they stand the test of time, and are sonic masterpieces IMO. Much better than later releases which are at (assumably) higher sample rates and deeper bit depth.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 4, 2019 15:04:56 GMT -6
That would be an interesting discussion point: I can't NAME a record made at 16/44. I can't name many records (I like) made at 24/44....and of those, 100% were mixed and mastered analog. So, I don't see that kind of thing as contradictory to my experience. Pfffft!!! Artistically Suspect IMO.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Dec 4, 2019 15:08:23 GMT -6
I can't NAME a record made at 16/44. Any record made on Pro Tools prior to 1997, when ProTools 24 was introduced, is 16/44.1. Any record made on Sony digital U-Matic (Sony PCM-1600, 1610, 1630), available in 1979. Bruce Springsteen's "The River" comes to mind. Not my favorite sonically. You could probably look up the Grammys for best engineered album for, say, 1990-1997 and they are almost guaranteed to be 16/44.1 recordings. As per Terry Manning in a long ago REP thread, Lenny Kravitz 5 was 16 bit, not sure about the sample rate. repforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,11733.msg143055.html#msg143055
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2019 16:12:24 GMT -6
Has anyone who sticks with 24/44.1 due to the disappointment of the down-conversion into a final "consumer-grade" product ever tried using AirWindows' Dithers? Not Just Another Dither 24 & Not Just Another CD (16bit) come to mind. Just curious, Chad PS: The only issue is... I don't believe the AirWindows plugins are ProTools compatible. Dither is noise profile shaping for bit rate down converting. So going from 32b to 24b. or 24b to 16b or 32b to 16b. It does not affect the sample right directly.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2019 16:15:12 GMT -6
I can't NAME a record made at 16/44. . The ones that immediately come to mind : the first few Seal records with Trevor Horn. Brilliant. they stand the test of time, and are sonic masterpieces IMO. Much better than later releases which are at (assumably) higher sample rates and deeper bit depth. I mean for me, there is tons of stuff that I can listen too at CD quality or even off of Spotify(about 1/3rd quality for a CD) and it is till damn good sounding. But still a ton of that stuff started either on Tape(yum) or higher sample rates like 96k or 192k. Are you just using PT to downsample with? Because...yes...that shit is terrible. haha but if you use a good program to do it, it is great. Im using Pyramix as my baseline to compare here or WaveLabs.
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 4, 2019 20:19:36 GMT -6
I think it's technically suspect to use 44.1 to avoid SRC--since all modern converters and most plugs ins worth a shit will be using (relatively) more lossy SRC at the channel and (in plug in case) bus level. Actual mastering SRC, IME, obviously--can be tricky going 48 to 44....but, it's child's play to go 88 or 96 to 44. Easily yielding a better 44.1 than white knuckle engineering it all at 44.1, constantly spinning dials to "fix" stuff....which brings me to the most succinct and untechnical answer I can give: What? 24/96 or 32/96 is my current depending on app--Mixbus has a known issue with certain functions if not in their native FP format.... I used 24/88.2 for many years...I can't hear any difference in 88 vs 96 in the production process really--but, the end result being 24/96 is important for delivery. While I can take a 24/88 master and MAKE 48khz AAC that come really close (meaning as good as from the 96), that's not how streaming services and consumer computer OSs seem to work. 88 WILL get turned to 44 and 96 to 48....and to my ear, even a 48khz AAC will sound better than linear CD. Vinyl is back because 44.1 was always a turd, IMO. Why? Because EVERYTHING I do is easier. End to end--from VIs having less latency under my fingers to mic captures not being all "Pet Semetery" on me....to being able to use digital DSP--clean or analog modeled to mix....to delivering a 24/96 single file that EASILY (with whatever real time dumbass SRC) streams 24/48 to an iPhone or makes 48khz ACC that sounds (to my ear) largely BETTER than CD....there's nothing that's NOT easier**....ON ME, the engineer. I say it that way--because I can an have used lower sample rates to good ends, but it's like pulling teeth and REQUIRES analog kit in the mix and/or mastering process to "get there". My laptop can make better recordings than the racks of analog kit I had for years band aiding single rate digital mixing. THAT, my friends is progress. **though....virtual instruments, it should be said are not straight DSP and DO tend to use exponentially more resources to make double rate. Unlike audio plug ins where it's pretty predictable being either LESS than 48 (due to internal defeating of resampling at 96) or exactly double (because it's NOT resampling)....VIs tend to get....much more quirky in performance. So, maybe "mostly nothing"....but, as an AUDIO engineer, nothing that's not easier. To your first point, I respectfully disagree. To the rest... that’s a lot of words to quantify something that can only be subjectively determined by any given discerning engineer/musician/listener, each of whom will have their own personal preferences. Whatever works for you is great, I simply answered the OP’s post as to where I work and why I work at those rates
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 4, 2019 20:23:12 GMT -6
I say....use whatever works. <thumbsup> Some of my favorite records were made 44.1/16. Go figure.... Agreed... i’m a fan of quality results... 16/24/32……… 44.1, 48, 88, 96 or otherwise
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Dec 4, 2019 21:20:07 GMT -6
For me it’s about the integrity of the audio, particularly as it relates to plugins. They’re not the same as hardware, which as I understand has some kinda infinite sample rate. Some stuff needs to run as high as 384k to keep the integrity of the modeling. I believe Satin and IK Tape oversample that high. 88/96 is kinda the bare minimum needed for some stuff. There’s a lot of people on other forums obsessed with the concept of “sounds like hardware”. But it’s kinda unfair to expect modeled plugins running at 44/48 to meet that standard. The White Sea Studio guy figured that out in one video, but then I see that he’s running his subsequent “snake oil” sessions at 48.
This isn’t my own theory, it’s what I learned discussing it with Andy from Cytomic, Fabien from TDR, and others years ago. When comparing 44 and 96 versions of the same session, the 44 is missing quite a bit of depth. It’s especially apparent with fx like reverb. Working at 44 just made everything harder.
Some thread I dug up the other day had Bob saying Saracon was the best SRC. That’s been my impression as well. Though the one in Audacity can be good too. It was never that noticeable when I’d convert some official release of some famous classic album down from 24/96 to 16/44 for cd burning. Mighta been some Alan Parsons stuff.
The plugins one uses and how they use them matters a lot too. Some can run at 44/48 with minimal issues.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 4, 2019 22:27:27 GMT -6
24/48
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 4, 2019 22:40:19 GMT -6
Why in the world would you only do 16 bit?
As for me 24/48 because honey badger don’t give a shit.
|
|