|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 2, 2018 4:34:59 GMT -6
Just curious What others are running at these days. I’ve used 96k for awhile. Intention is not a discussion of why this or that is better, can you setup a pole here?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Nov 2, 2018 4:42:22 GMT -6
48 generally, unless it’s jazz. In that case 96
|
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 2, 2018 5:01:14 GMT -6
48 generally, unless it’s jazz. In that case 96 Because of the complex chords!! |
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Nov 2, 2018 5:08:15 GMT -6
48 generally, unless it’s jazz. In that case 96 Because of the complex chords!! Haha yes! But also because it’s less about sculpting a production and more about getting a really good capture and letting that shine through. Also I can’t remember the last time I did a jazz gig where the musicians weren’t asking what sample rate I was at. They always seem pretty concerned about it. |
|
|
|
Post by hio on Nov 2, 2018 5:12:41 GMT -6
48 generally, unless it’s jazz. In that case 96 Because of the complex chords!! No, because it is not mixed with 200 tracks and 500 plugs. |
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 2, 2018 5:28:16 GMT -6
Because of the complex chords!! No, because it is not mixed with 200 tracks and 500 plugs. Also a very good point. |
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 2, 2018 5:29:33 GMT -6
one aspect I like about 96 is the latency.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 2, 2018 5:41:59 GMT -6
88.2k for both tracking and mixing down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 6:28:29 GMT -6
44 or 96
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 2, 2018 6:33:09 GMT -6
48 almost exclusively, even though I know most plugins work best at 96 . . . but then 100+ tracks don't play back as smoothly, even off SSDs
Anyone know why? It's a compromise either way, and I greatly dislike it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940 
|
Post by ericn on Nov 2, 2018 6:40:46 GMT -6
The RADAR V seams to work best at 48, so I’ll be at 48 till I win the lottery.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 2, 2018 6:51:57 GMT -6
48 almost exclusively, even though I know most plugins work best at 96 . . . but then 100+ tracks don't play back as smoothly, even off SSDs Anyone know why? It's a compromise either way, and I greatly dislike it. That's strange. I run stuff at 88.2K and I never even noticed much of a difference with tons of tracks and plugs. It's not doing some kind of sample rate conversion in the background is it? Like the tracks are 96, but it's playing back at 44.1 or something? That could put a huge strain on the system without being noticeable otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Nov 2, 2018 7:27:44 GMT -6
Just recently converted a two track PT session to 48 to see how it sounded to me nowadays and it was radically different from the original 88. Could be my plugin choices. The depth, high frequency extension, and clarity were severely effected. It limited the moves I could make and made it a lot harder to mix. With a careful selection of plugins at 48 aliasing, eq cramping, etc could be minimized maybe. I know the natural phase mode in Pro Q2 adds a lot of latency. 88/96 probably isn't ideal either given how stuff like Novatron upsamples above that and seems to sound better for it. But cpus are a long way off from running 192k or above. Running 88/96 is already tough with current computers if you're not using dsp servers. But you could run an 88/96 session easy with a hundred tracks if you look at the instance count of the Waves Soundgrid servers and picked stuff like SSL, Audio Track, L2, CLA76, all the high instance stuff. Despite being 30% higher in single core and 149% higher in multi, the Extreme Server can only run one more instance of H-Reverb. Maybe the results would be different if the two processors were installed in desktops and running at a 2048 buffer?
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 2, 2018 7:35:36 GMT -6
88K2
|
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Nov 2, 2018 8:03:45 GMT -6
44.1kHz on my PT rig with an apogee
192khz on my Merging Pyramix rig, but eventually moving up to DSD256 with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Nov 2, 2018 9:03:27 GMT -6
Typically 44.1khz / 24 bit, which I know is pretty low, but it all goes to CD or streaming in the end for me. I'd like to avoid sample rate conversion so I've thought about 88.2khz but really haven't worked with higher sample rates enough to know if the difference justifies the increased hard drive space and CPU cycles. I remember reading about this for years and years and stressing over it. In the end, who else besides engineers can even tell the difference unless they are side by side? I remember watching a video of Manny Marroquin or Tony Maserati where they said they still work at 44.1 and like that "crunchy" sound better. Maybe that is no longer true. I think it was one of the mix with the masters videos. I wish my memory was better so I could be more accurate...
|
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Nov 2, 2018 9:26:41 GMT -6
44.1 for the past 20 years, I just made a move to 48 because most stuff goes to video as well. There are also some reputable engineers that I trust that recommended the move.
I know the benefits of higher rates with plugin aliasing, but I’d rather keep my track counts and ADAT I/O.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Nov 2, 2018 9:29:00 GMT -6
96kHz here. For some reason cymbals on drum overheads are the most noticeable improvement to me when tracking at higher sample rates. Having said that I did mistakenly track a song at 44.1 a few weeks ago and nothing stood out to me to check that anything was wrong so who knows? haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Nov 2, 2018 9:30:39 GMT -6
48 khz / 24 bit
|
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Nov 2, 2018 10:20:51 GMT -6
Recording: 48kHz. It actually sounds better than all the other SRs to me on my system.
Mixing: Whatever SR it was recorded at.
Mastering: Whatever SR it comes in at, except for 44.1 (I'll SRC 44.1 to 96 for mastering).
|
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Nov 2, 2018 10:22:20 GMT -6
Are you talking only about mastering sessions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 10:32:55 GMT -6
trakworxmastering No, tracking only. Sometimes 44, sometimes 96, based on nothing except whim.  I've only been experimenting seriously with recording and mixing again very recently, and still haven't arrived at any "standards". For mastering I used to stay at the client submitted SR until final deliverables (whatever was needed), but this year I've started upsampling everything to 96 if it's not there already, before doing anything else, and staying there until the end. Saves me using the sometimes crappy sounding OS in any plugins, and I think it sounds better, even if the final deliverable is back down to 44.
|
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Nov 2, 2018 10:38:47 GMT -6
I find the SRC in Audacity to be top notch, I'm pretty sure I nulled a 44k and 96k file of the same track last week. It's converting bit depths that I found tricky, sometimes the 16 bit loses a lot in translation. So I just started setting all my dithers to 16 bit whether it's Peacock, DS-1, or Ox Limiter. And output at 16 bit. I'll do separate 24-bit mixes if I need to. With some sessions going from 24 to 16 wasn't too much a problem, for others it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 2, 2018 11:09:40 GMT -6
88.2k for both tracking and mixing down. I just tracked a project in 88.2 to see if it would make a difference...not completely convinced it did. Maybe...Anyway, I’ve avoided it because I connect to my hearback system via adat and it screws up all the channels at higher SR. svart do you do 88.2 for any particular reason? |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 2, 2018 11:15:11 GMT -6
Question for you mastering guys...I’ve been burning down at my normal 24/48 and then for mp3s, I just convert in iTunes...any issues with that as far as dithering and all of that mumbo jumbo?
|
|
I've only been experimenting seriously with recording and mixing again very recently, and still haven't arrived at any "standards".
