|
Post by EmRR on Nov 23, 2018 13:01:39 GMT -6
Try putting some all pass filters above 10Khz. The mechanics of how the inner ear relates information to the brain implies that you shouldn't hear a difference,but I cant say I've tried it. So..., LOW PASS FILTERS SET TO 10K? All pass filters rotate phase I do believe. I'm remembering a higher end live sound EQ 20+ years ago, review mentioned it had received an immediate update due to the first large customer order wanting more linear phase response at 20K. I dunno......
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 23, 2018 18:26:43 GMT -6
So..., LOW PASS FILTERS SET TO 10K? All pass filters rotate phase I do believe. I'm remembering a higher end live sound EQ 20+ years ago, review mentioned it had received an immediate update due to the first large customer order wanting more linear phase response at 20K. I dunno...... My Mistake! [/color][/b]
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Nov 23, 2018 20:28:34 GMT -6
48/24. Happy without it sounds and couldn't really afford. To be losing adat inputs to 88/96 rates. Re:the phase distortion of upper frequencies. Try putting some all pass filters above 10Khz. The mechanics of how the inner ear relates information to the brain implies that you shouldn't hear a difference,but I cant say I've tried it. So..., LOW PASS FILTERS SET TO 10K? That might end up sounding dull, lifeless or muddy. Even if most folks over 30 can't hear above 12K, you're still cutting out a whole lot of information. I routinely slope things down from 16K but only because that's all people really get with an MP3 or back in the day a cassette tape. And that's the sound most folks prefer anyhow. Bonus: Limiting bandwidth from 35.5hz to 16.1Khz gives you more headroom and the possibility for loudness. A heck of a lot of real estate gets chewed up from 20-35.5hz and from 16-20Khz ALL PASS. Not LOW PASS. All Pass causes group delay, changing the phase relationship across the frequency spectrum without causing any change in amplitude. Not what I was saying at all, just a simple way to independently verify if you're hearing tonal changes when the high frequencies have their phase shifted in relation to the low frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 25, 2018 22:41:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 26, 2018 16:00:52 GMT -6
This is the filter police. Surrender now or we will have no choice but to use deadly force. *cold iron cell door clanks shut* My names Friday. Joe Friday.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Nov 27, 2018 23:40:11 GMT -6
OK, real basic question...
Is it better to record at 48, instead of 44.1, and not worry about dithering?
Or just stay at 44.1? Final "product" WAV file and/or CD. Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 28, 2018 0:07:50 GMT -6
OK, real basic question... Is it better to record at 48, instead of 44.1, and not worry about dithering? Or just stay at 44.1? Final "product" WAV file and/or CD. Thanks, Chris Dithering is only for bits. As is going from 24b to 16b. Going from 48k to 44.1 is a resampling.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Nov 28, 2018 2:08:07 GMT -6
Oops! Now you KNOW I'm (usually) just a singer! Yes I meant resampling. Gee, I guess it'll take another week or two, before I'm "an expert" at all this.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 28, 2018 7:43:24 GMT -6
Oops! Now you KNOW I'm (usually) just a singer! Yes I meant resampling. Gee, Chris, the world revolves around you! LOL Slow learner? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Nov 28, 2018 8:36:13 GMT -6
Guilty as charged! Obviously I forgot...The best AE's, like the best Rap/Hip Hop Producers, never sample-They resample! (can't remember where I left my gold chains either). OK then, how would you guys describe the pro's/con's of going from a higher bit rate to lower, and resampling? (if you were explaining to the "intelligent layperson"/musician-they exist-right? ) Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 28, 2018 15:01:05 GMT -6
You want to work where it sounds better. That's always 48 (vs 44)...resampling is lossy only when going to a lower rate. I say it that way SPECIFICALLY...because the resampling process is NOT lossy...it's that the lower rate is lossy. Resample higher ALL DAY...and it won't impact the sound. I specify that because it's a MYTH that...it's the process of resampling. Like "if you're going to deliver 44.1 you should use 44.1 to begin with"...bull...shit. You should make the best recording you can using whatever sounds best...and then deliver WTF-ever you deliver. There's no functional bonus for making it harder on yourself by using inferior sample rates for everything throughout the process. The better sounding recording makes the better sounding mix makes the better sounding master FOR ANY format.
You needn't concern yourself with the delivery format when MAKING a recording.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 28, 2018 15:18:38 GMT -6
You want to work where it sounds better. That's always 48 (vs 44)...resampling is lossy only when going to a lower rate. I say it that way SPECIFICALLY...because the resampling process is NOT lossy...it's that the lower rate is lossy. Resample higher ALL DAY...and it won't impact the sound. I specify that because it's a MYTH that...it's the process of resampling. Like "if you're going to deliver 44.1 you should use 44.1 to begin with"...bull...shit. You should make the best recording you can using whatever sounds best...and then deliver WTF-ever you deliver. There's no functional bonus for making it harder on yourself by using inferior sample rates for everything throughout the process. The better sounding recording makes the better sounding mix makes the better sounding master FOR ANY format. You needn't concern yourself with the delivery format when MAKING a recording.
I'm feeling like I agree with this. I've done some testing with my vsti drums and mixed them down at everything from 441 to 192k. Obviously, 192k sounds best in the highs at the very least. It still sounds better for some reason to use Izotope and down sample from 192 once it's rendered than to just mix at 44k.
Plugins that don't oversample certainly sound better at higher rates. I do feel like there is some smear at 192 or something that sounds a bit odd, but I will do a project at 192k just to feel it out. 96 might be my go to from now on though. Processing power is pretty good these days, save for certain synths and plugs like U-He.
Going to CD format after 96 will probably still sound better than everything being done at 441. But I'm no expert.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 28, 2018 16:45:53 GMT -6
...its always going to sound better if you capture at a higher sample rate...thats what we've all been saying?
It of course sounds better starting higher and resampling lower. Much better.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Nov 28, 2018 16:55:56 GMT -6
Thanks guys. A key point for me, was whether it might be better (in some cases), to remain at 44.1 from the onset. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Nov 28, 2018 18:06:32 GMT -6
Thanks guys. A key point for me, was whether it might be better (in some cases), to remain at 44.1 from the onset. Chris I'm fairly certain it comes down to resources for mixing. It's certainly not going to ruin an album but I think better sound is going to happen at higher rates. Then it's also future proof and can be released on hi res platforms.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 28, 2018 21:47:06 GMT -6
My experience has been that plug-ins that oversample also sound better at higher sample rates after high quality conversion to the final rate. That isn't surprising when you consider the CPU overhead of a comparable quality up-sample/down-sample cycle.
|
|