Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 9:19:59 GMT -6
192K--classical.
|
|
|
Post by roundbadge on Nov 5, 2018 5:20:41 GMT -6
was 96 for years. Now for bigger track counts,generally rock guitar stuff 48k. Plugin/dsp efficiency,hdx track counts etc. Using Burl mothership/grimm clocking . still sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 5, 2018 5:41:56 GMT -6
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 5, 2018 5:42:56 GMT -6
I think my cheese grater would catch fire at 192k
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 5, 2018 5:53:35 GMT -6
So, just from memory reading this thread, so far probably 60-70% 44 or 48, 30ish percent 88 or 96 and 1 super hero at 192. About right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 6:15:38 GMT -6
If I'd known this was a contest, I'd have worn a tie (if I could find one). I actually know classical engineers who record at 352.8K.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 5, 2018 8:04:13 GMT -6
So, just from memory reading this thread, so far probably 60-70% 44 or 48, 30ish percent 88 or 96 and 1 super hero at 192. About right? The biggest debate is between 44.1 and 48 innit?
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Nov 5, 2018 8:37:45 GMT -6
Im not a smartie, but I think the concensious is the bang for buck the biggest (littlest?) jump up with payoff is 48? I could be very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 5, 2018 8:55:51 GMT -6
44.1 is the standard for CD's and 48 is the standard for video. CD's are mostly dead. I'm sticking with 48 for now.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 5, 2018 8:58:12 GMT -6
Im not a smartie, but I think the concensious is the bang for buck the biggest (littlest?) jump up with payoff is 48? I could be very wrong. Both 48 and 96 are certainly industry standards depending on the demands of a particular job. But at which sample rate do plugins perform best? Or does that vary also?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 5, 2018 9:19:34 GMT -6
Im not a smartie, but I think the concensious is the bang for buck the biggest (littlest?) jump up with payoff is 48? I could be very wrong. Both 48 and 96 are certainly industry standards depending on the demands of a particular job. But at which sample rate do plugins perform best? Or does that vary also? Some plugins upsample internally. Some sound completely different at different rates. "It depends."
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 5, 2018 9:55:49 GMT -6
Both 48 and 96 are certainly industry standards depending on the demands of a particular job. But at which sample rate do plugins perform best? Or does that vary also? Some plugins upsample internally. Some sound completely different at different rates. "It depends." OK, and that's a good baseline response... now how about more specifics? WAVES in general. Where do they work best?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 5, 2018 10:11:52 GMT -6
Some plugins upsample internally. Some sound completely different at different rates. "It depends." OK, and that's a good baseline response... now how about more specifics? WAVES in general. Where do they work best? I'm afraid I have almost no specific knowledge about particular plugins. I think when you're using clipping or saturation, things that generate lots of upper harmonics well beyond human hearing... that is where you want to audition different sample rates. My easy answer is I've never really encountered any problems with plugins, at least none that I noticed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 10:21:15 GMT -6
Some plugins (and indeed some converters) sound better at some sample rates than others. It really is "it depends", you've gotta try a few ways and go with what your ears tell you sounds best for any given situation. If you work at higher rates, always try switching off a plugin's internal OS if you can, often sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 5, 2018 12:02:41 GMT -6
If I'd known this was a contest, I'd have worn a tie (if I could find one). I actually know classical engineers who record at 352.8K. Indeed. The guys down the street from me at Sono Luminus (who use your reverb) record classical at 384khz on the Merging Tech stuff. I still don't know why entirely, but that's ok.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 5, 2018 13:17:21 GMT -6
If I'd known this was a contest, I'd have worn a tie (if I could find one). I actually know classical engineers who record at 352.8K. I record in 384K for classical
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 5, 2018 14:00:44 GMT -6
If I'd known this was a contest, I'd have worn a tie (if I could find one). I actually know classical engineers who record at 352.8K. I record in 384K for classical Can I ask your reasons for this sample rate?
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Nov 5, 2018 14:22:17 GMT -6
44.1kHz 24-bit. I find that quality of converters used, quality of gear used, and especially quality of source have a far bigger impact than sample rate. Short of very exposed music with lower track counts, I have found no major benefit for higher sample rates. I’ve done A/B tests and I’m not convinced yet for most styles.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 5, 2018 14:30:26 GMT -6
I heard an operatic recording done at Manifold, on the system at Kitchen Mastering, in the original 384K, followed by sample rate reductions to 192/96/48, and some blind switching. I can't say why, but it did seem to get less relaxed and natural sounding with each halving, becoming less open, less deep, and more grainy. For the material in question, the highest rate felt closer to reality. I don't know what the conversion method was. On that system, it was not a subtle difference. Punk guitar bands? Not sure why. 88K2 or 96K for cymbals on many converters. manifoldrecording.comwww.kitchenmastering.com
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 5, 2018 16:02:46 GMT -6
24/48K here. I'd go higher but my system -Pro Tools native built around an 8-core/32gb Mac Pro trashcan and Apogee Symphony MK1- starts to max out as my mixes get larger. PT does, that is, not the Mac. But I'm using SD3 for drums and I don't ever print it's audio. Some day I want to move to real drums, but that's a whole other subject.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 5, 2018 16:05:24 GMT -6
I record in 384K for classical Can I ask your reasons for this sample rate? Well, the first is the owner wants it that high. So thats the big one.. otherwise the idea is it's kind of future proofing for when higher resolution audio becomes a thing. Which we all know has very slim chances of ever happening, but at least we are trying. We also are doing in in 9.1 Surround Sound in the Auro3D format in hopes its a bit more future proof. Sadly, Atmos is winning that battle big time so we will likely switch to that. The idea is to try and capture as much stuff as possible, not just the sound but the room itself as well and the feeling in the room and air. I am running PT at 32b/96K in parallel so that you can with one button swap between the two and you can in fact tell a difference. Some of that is converters I'm sure as the front end and back end of the Pyramix system is different a bit although its the same microphones and preamps. But it just sounds much fuller and more true to whats happening in the room. I know that sounds crazy, I thought it was crazy when I took the job. But I now get it after working in it for a while. It is different, and its a good different. Storage is cheap and we aren't anywhere approaching video storage levels so I don't see why not if we have the gear. DSD is cool but it is just not very flexible in post. It also sounds different but again the owner prefers the PCM better. So we do that.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 6, 2018 0:40:31 GMT -6
Can I ask your reasons for this sample rate? Well, the first is the owner wants it that high. So thats the big one.. otherwise the idea is it's kind of future proofing for when higher resolution audio becomes a thing. Which we all know has very slim chances of ever happening, but at least we are trying. We also are doing in in 9.1 Surround Sound in the Auro3D format in hopes its a bit more future proof. Sadly, Atmos is winning that battle big time so we will likely switch to that. The idea is to try and capture as much stuff as possible, not just the sound but the room itself as well and the feeling in the room and air. I am running PT at 32b/96K in parallel so that you can with one button swap between the two and you can in fact tell a difference. Some of that is converters I'm sure as the front end and back end of the Pyramix system is different a bit although its the same microphones and preamps. But it just sounds much fuller and more true to whats happening in the room. I know that sounds crazy, I thought it was crazy when I took the job. But I now get it after working in it for a while. It is different, and its a good different. Storage is cheap and we aren't anywhere approaching video storage levels so I don't see why not if we have the gear. DSD is cool but it is just not very flexible in post. It also sounds different but again the owner prefers the PCM better. So we do that. Very interesting. Yes, the owner says so it goes...
Future-proofing is a good idea.
Sono Lum also does surround big time. Interesting.
My only question is, if it's about capturing all the sound, does it really need to go up that far past 20, 30 or even 40 khz?
And it doesn't really sound crazy to me. Very interesting in any case. It's one of those things that on the face of it would seem to be higher=better, but the whole Dan Lavry thing about losing accuracy as the bandwidth increases. It's all stuff that folks argue a lot over, but there doesn't seem to be anything conclusive. I don't understand it myself, except for the basics and what could understand in the Lavry papers.
I wish I could do simultaneous recordings at different sample rates to A/B. I feel like maybe I hear a little more openness when running 88.2 or 96k over 44.1 on acoustic guitar with condensers. Hard for me to tell. I do like the idea of a little breathing room over the audible range. Hmmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 6, 2018 0:53:12 GMT -6
Well, the first is the owner wants it that high. So thats the big one.. otherwise the idea is it's kind of future proofing for when higher resolution audio becomes a thing. Which we all know has very slim chances of ever happening, but at least we are trying. We also are doing in in 9.1 Surround Sound in the Auro3D format in hopes its a bit more future proof. Sadly, Atmos is winning that battle big time so we will likely switch to that. The idea is to try and capture as much stuff as possible, not just the sound but the room itself as well and the feeling in the room and air. I am running PT at 32b/96K in parallel so that you can with one button swap between the two and you can in fact tell a difference. Some of that is converters I'm sure as the front end and back end of the Pyramix system is different a bit although its the same microphones and preamps. But it just sounds much fuller and more true to whats happening in the room. I know that sounds crazy, I thought it was crazy when I took the job. But I now get it after working in it for a while. It is different, and its a good different. Storage is cheap and we aren't anywhere approaching video storage levels so I don't see why not if we have the gear. DSD is cool but it is just not very flexible in post. It also sounds different but again the owner prefers the PCM better. So we do that. Very interesting. Yes, the owner says so it goes...
Future-proofing is a good idea.
Sono Lum also does surround big time. Interesting.
My only question is, if it's about capturing all the sound, does it really need to go up that far past 20, 30 or even 40 khz?
And it doesn't really sound crazy to me. Very interesting in any case. It's one of those things that on the face of it would seem to be higher=better, but the whole Dan Lavry thing about losing accuracy as the bandwidth increases. It's all stuff that folks argue a lot over, but there doesn't seem to be anything conclusive. I don't understand it myself, except for the basics and what could understand in the Lavry papers.
I wish I could do simultaneous recordings at different sample rates to A/B. I feel like maybe I hear a little more openness when running 88.2 or 96k over 44.1 on acoustic guitar with condensers. Hard for me to tell. I do like the idea of a little breathing room over the audible range. Hmmmmm.
There is plenty of reason to be at 88.2 or 96 these days. Having the Nyquist filter that high up is where the benefit is. It is drastically better that 44.1k IMO at least. Which is the same sort of reasoning for having it up at 384k. Is it truly better? I'm not certain either. I've only been working in DXD for almost 2 years. Still learning it fully myself. I do believe that 24/96k should be the standard though at least now days. Computer are fast enough and storage is cheap enough. I see absolutely no reason to work in 44.1k anymore really, barely even 48k too. Either way, getting to recording in 384 and swap to 24/96 even when down sampling its not the same. Then it gets turned into AAC or mp4 for video or 24/48 and it just isn't ever as awesome sounding. Rather disheartening. That is my experience anyways. It is cool to be able to A/B the two different setups. Everything runs to Grace m802 mic pre amps. I use the Grace AD converters to run digitally to PT and that stays digital to the AX32 monitor controller and all the way to the Genelec 8351a's and 8041a's. FOr Pyramix it goes from the Grace out the built in splitter analog to 2 Hapi's then digitally up to Pyramix and then analog out of a Horus to the AX32. So really even my DXD stuff i'm technically monitoring in 24/96k. But it sounds much better still. We use PT as our backup recorder...even though Pyramix in Safety Record mode is bullet proof compared to PT. Then I do mixing in Pyramix for audio releases and PT for film releases. Even for the film I use the DXD audio and sample convert to 96k and it still sounds better than the PT audio. It's of course all pretty subjective. I realize that doing stuff at 384k is not normal for a lot of reasons. I'm just lucky I get to work at a place as I do and get to use it. Otherwise I'd probably do everything in 96k if I was freelance.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 6, 2018 2:30:38 GMT -6
Very interesting. Yes, the owner says so it goes...
Future-proofing is a good idea.
Sono Lum also does surround big time. Interesting.
My only question is, if it's about capturing all the sound, does it really need to go up that far past 20, 30 or even 40 khz?
And it doesn't really sound crazy to me. Very interesting in any case. It's one of those things that on the face of it would seem to be higher=better, but the whole Dan Lavry thing about losing accuracy as the bandwidth increases. It's all stuff that folks argue a lot over, but there doesn't seem to be anything conclusive. I don't understand it myself, except for the basics and what could understand in the Lavry papers.
I wish I could do simultaneous recordings at different sample rates to A/B. I feel like maybe I hear a little more openness when running 88.2 or 96k over 44.1 on acoustic guitar with condensers. Hard for me to tell. I do like the idea of a little breathing room over the audible range. Hmmmmm.
There is plenty of reason to be at 88.2 or 96 these days. Having the Nyquist filter that high up is where the benefit is. It is drastically better that 44.1k IMO at least. Which is the same sort of reasoning for having it up at 384k. Is it truly better? I'm not certain either. I've only been working in DXD for almost 2 years. Still learning it fully myself. I do believe that 24/96k should be the standard though at least now days. Computer are fast enough and storage is cheap enough. I see absolutely no reason to work in 44.1k anymore really, barely even 48k too. Either way, getting to recording in 384 and swap to 24/96 even when down sampling its not the same. Then it gets turned into AAC or mp4 for video or 24/48 and it just isn't ever as awesome sounding. Rather disheartening. That is my experience anyways. It is cool to be able to A/B the two different setups. Everything runs to Grace m802 mic pre amps. I use the Grace AD converters to run digitally to PT and that stays digital to the AX32 monitor controller and all the way to the Genelec 8351a's and 8041a's. FOr Pyramix it goes from the Grace out the built in splitter analog to 2 Hapi's then digitally up to Pyramix and then analog out of a Horus to the AX32. So really even my DXD stuff i'm technically monitoring in 24/96k. But it sounds much better still. We use PT as our backup recorder...even though Pyramix in Safety Record mode is bullet proof compared to PT. Then I do mixing in Pyramix for audio releases and PT for film releases. Even for the film I use the DXD audio and sample convert to 96k and it still sounds better than the PT audio. It's of course all pretty subjective. I realize that doing stuff at 384k is not normal for a lot of reasons. I'm just lucky I get to work at a place as I do and get to use it. Otherwise I'd probably do everything in 96k if I was freelance. I imagine it is disheartening.I think the same was happening back in the day after tape transfers and vinyl mastering and the like. Even Allen Sides mentioned that what he heard through the board during tracking wasn't the same immediately on tape playback. 10-15% lost in his estimation.
If everyone would get on the high-res bandwagon, digital could make that a thing of the past. Right from tracking to mastering and to the consumer without losing quality. That would be a first. Then there was the mp3. Somehow opportunity knocked and it all went backerds.
It would be fun to do testing here. I am certainly astounded with the quality I hear on my Lynx (n). Maybe I'll just run it at 192 from now on.
Never tried DXD though.
It's funny, as soon as 88.2k gets in on more and more computers, the less it seems necessary now. As I understand it, the use of that rate is simple math for the computer to halve the rate. Seems like computers now don't have any issues doing that with speed from other rates.
96k should probably be the standard, yea. 441 is so close to the audible range considering the filtering. There was a lot more room on tape, right? Bias was at what, 150khz or something on some machines and higher?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 6:57:52 GMT -6
I record in 384K for classical Can I ask your reasons for this sample rate? While it's completely true that a sine wave can be reproduced (assuming perfect filters) up to nyquist, there's a second issue that I haven't really seen discussed here. Let's say you're at 44.1K and you're recording a 22K sine wave. The sine wave--even a perfect one--might be recorded (with those pesky perfect filters). But the phase of that sine wave is another thing entirely. There are only two points of that sine wave actually recorded and they occur only at the clock ticks. The phase may have only a tenuous relationship to the actual phase of the input. I don't know what you'd call this, but it's something akin to jitter: even if your clocking is perfect, that sine wave has been shoehorned into the two available bins--one positive and one negative. Now consider that we're recording a piano (and let's make the false assumption that it doesn't generate any energy above 22K). A note consists of a stack of partials, going from the fundamental all the way up to 22K. The higher the frequency of the partial, the more iffy its phase. And when you consider that partials also change pitch in complex ways, then things get worse. There's sort of a 'grinding' as those partials are increasingly phase-shifted relative to the fundamental. It's a small thing, to be certain. But small things are what we focus on. Higher sample rates don't make this go away, but they do lower the amount of error. I also think they produce better imaging, but this doesn't appear to be much-studied.
|
|