|
Post by EmRR on Nov 2, 2018 11:32:57 GMT -6
I was just told by my regular mastering guy the jriver format conversion is among the best.
88K2 solves the problems of 44K1 and 48K, with a smaller data hit than 96K. The only downside is many chips don't support it, and that depends on the era your hardware is from. There have been macs that didn't have native support, then they did again, then they didn't. Some recent Tascam remote recorders go 44K1/48K/96K/192K. Etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by sam on Nov 2, 2018 11:56:03 GMT -6
24/48. If it ain't broke!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 2, 2018 12:54:18 GMT -6
96k
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 2, 2018 12:58:50 GMT -6
96k always. For all the usual reasons you would want to use 96k over 44.1k, latency being a big one.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Nov 2, 2018 13:16:22 GMT -6
24/48, old PT 10HD TDM rig.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 2, 2018 13:51:22 GMT -6
48K. I got files from a guy who recorded at FAME in Muscle Shoals and they recorded at 48.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 2, 2018 14:17:55 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? At one point in the past it was supposedly easier to sample rate convert down to 44.1K on lesser computers if needed, but I think those days are long gone due to cheap and fast computers and much better algorithms. So for now, it's because it's a big step up in clarity from 44/48 but saves some space from 96K. I didn't hear much difference between 88.2 and 96, at least not like the jump I heard from 44.1 to 88.2K. I did hear a large difference in fidelity going from 44.1 to 88.2K on my SSL Alphalinks. It's not so much a change in tonality like having more top end, but tracks just sound more "real" to me.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 2, 2018 15:11:20 GMT -6
48
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Nov 2, 2018 15:30:15 GMT -6
96 preferred but will take what I get
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 15:57:02 GMT -6
Switched from 48 throughout until final src to 48 upsampled to a 96kHz project, which i always had the impression of making a small but still hearable difference at least in some projects and finally now record everything 24/96 und work with this throughout until final SRC. Happy with this. I do not see this change anytime again, 192 may be the choice of modern broadcast for archiving, but i really really doubt i will be able to profit from this anyhow with what i do.
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 2, 2018 17:22:06 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? I think I know the answer...
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 2, 2018 17:58:32 GMT -6
88.2 makes the most sense to me after I read the Dan Lavry papers. However since the industry seems to settle on 96k for "hi res" then that's what I tend to use on acoustic type stuff. Otherwise just 44.1.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Nov 2, 2018 18:18:51 GMT -6
Mostly "self practice" home/office recordings, so 16(!)/44.1 is fine with me. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 2, 2018 21:32:51 GMT -6
and yes, according to the site with all the SRC graphs, Audacity is awesome at it. I use it for that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 2, 2018 22:04:42 GMT -6
Short answer: 88.2khz tracking...96khz mastering.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 2, 2018 23:24:12 GMT -6
32/96 in PT 32/384 in Pyramix
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Nov 3, 2018 2:40:10 GMT -6
I just did another null test with an original 16/96 file and the 16/44 flac file I made off the wav and then a 16/44 wav also made from the original. Dither was rectangle and best quality. First time with the flac file you could only hear the missing frequency content if you cranked the speaker volume to way above normal listening levels. 2nd and 3rd times the leftover content after inverting was a lot louder on both the wav and flac. Wasn't just high frequencies either. Both 16/44 files nulled. Turning off dither yielded a little different result. Does anyone know if it's possible to do SRC and get identical results? I've never found a direct answer in numerous searches.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 3, 2018 8:50:35 GMT -6
96 for at least a year now
next month I'm going to switch back to 48 for hardware reasons, and see how that feels/sounds, see if I notice any practical difference
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Nov 3, 2018 9:13:56 GMT -6
88.2k for the last decade, playback through the Sydec conversion of the time was less disappointing than lower rates. Fewer higher DSP plug-ins and more analog processing sounded better than the inverse.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Nov 3, 2018 10:24:04 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? That sounds like the correct workflow. Do you keep your MP3s at 48k?
Instead of iTunes there's also a nice little freeware app called xACT that can handle a wide variety of audio compression/conversion tasks - xact.scottcbrown.org/
|
|
|
Post by hio on Nov 3, 2018 17:02:04 GMT -6
I did a sample rate poll back in 2005 over 13 years ago at rec.audio.pro (usenet) and each contestant had to submit blood to prove they were human.
The majority were using 24/44.1 back then, a few using 24/96 and a few 16/44.1, and a couple depending on source material. No one was doing 88.2 or 192. Only *one* was using 24/48 which I believe is the industry standard now.
|
|
|
Post by javamad on Nov 3, 2018 18:17:52 GMT -6
24/48 here for video compatibility without re-sampling... just something I read somewhere. It kinda gives the best balance of “quality” and resource usage (disk space and cpu)
I have been meaning to try higher rates and the comment about the cymbalss in this thread means I’ll now lose a day testing :-)
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Nov 3, 2018 20:17:40 GMT -6
96k. I have 4 hard drives in my pc. 2 ssd 2hhd. I use the ssd for programs and quick edits and the hhd for libraries and cliients. Hard drives cost nothing nowadays and so to keep life easy I just keep it 96k cause I can always down sample. Other studios I track in typically operate at 48k (and they think im being a pita) so sometimes I have to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 3, 2018 22:00:32 GMT -6
96 mostly. Sometimes 44.1 or 48.
|
|
|
Post by drumhead57 on Nov 4, 2018 2:02:56 GMT -6
I've been recording at 96K for a while, probably because my Burl Mothership defaults to that, not for any other reason other than I'm just too lazy to change it. I've recently been experimenting with DSD128 (5.6mHz) and getting some impressive results. For some reason, I find that when tracking drums with the higher DSD sample rate they sound more open and natural. It seems to take the sharp snare transients very well. It definitely sounds more hi-fi.
|
|