|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 11, 2019 10:21:53 GMT -6
and what about 88kHZ? They say its better if you bounce your finished track to 44kHZ because of math. any thoughts on that? i never tried myself but maybe will. I believe that is outdated info based on early SRC algos that are mostly no longer in use. But if you're using old SRC software then maybe...
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Apr 11, 2019 10:26:27 GMT -6
For me, it usually depends on;
1) The Converter 2) The music 3) the way the music sounds through the converter at the chosen rate.
Sometimes, I find myself doing way too much work on music at higher sample rates. Sometimes, I find the music sounds so much better at higher rates.
Every Converter sounds different at different sample rates. Some sound bad at higher rates, some sound better at higher rates. Some don't change at all. Some converters sound great at every rate.
Therefore, I tend to use 44.1 with certain applications and 96/192K and DSD256 with others. Mainly for pure acoustic music, I like to use 192/DSD. 96K sounds bad on my apogee so I don't use it, but 192 sounds amazing on my Merging, so it's stuck there.
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Apr 11, 2019 12:09:18 GMT -6
and what about 88kHZ? They say its better if you bounce your finished track to 44kHZ because of math. any thoughts on that? i never tried myself but maybe will. I believe that is outdated info based on early SRC algos that are mostly no longer in use. But if you're using old SRC software then maybe... it was dave sardy if i remember correctly who said the above theory about 88kHz. and yeah, i think the article is from 10 years ago :-)
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Apr 11, 2019 12:40:15 GMT -6
Or can it be too clinical? I’m with ya Johnkenn - I feel the same way about 96k - sounds a bit clinical and sharp to me most often. I’m happy to work anywhere between 44.1 and 96k, but I still prefer 24-bit 44.1kHz. Plenty of headroom for me and I find my biggest gains come from continuing to improving my mixing skills. Changing Sample rate has not improved my mixes. But the quality of converters and especially DA for monitoring and ADDA for master buss is critical for me I'd have to agree on this very much. I don't think the sample rate is preventing me from achieving better mixes. I mix completely ITB so i need a ton of horsepower to finish the mixes. Working at 96k forces me to bounce down or freeze tracks in order to continue mixing. Maybe it's just the way I mix but that slows down my already snails-pace approach to a final mix. I've no doubt that for many people 96k will be much clearer and smoother. But, there is that trade-off of speed. I saw some video with either Tony Masserati or Manny Marroquin where he simply said he preferred 44.1 due to CPU and he also liked the slight grittiness to it. Can't remember the video but it convinced me that sample rate is not my biggest hurdle to being a better mix engineer. I imagine that computers will get to the point where it is no longer an issue.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Apr 11, 2019 12:41:51 GMT -6
I believe that is outdated info based on early SRC algos that are mostly no longer in use. But if you're using old SRC software then maybe... it was dave sardy if i remember correctly who said the above theory about 88kHz. and yeah, i think the article is from 10 years ago :-) I thought it was Lavry that wrote about that.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Apr 11, 2019 18:31:50 GMT -6
I'd have to agree on this very much. I don't think the sample rate is preventing me from achieving better mixes. I mix completely ITB so i need a ton of horsepower to finish the mixes. Working at 96k forces me to bounce down or freeze tracks in order to continue mixing. Maybe it's just the way I mix but that slows down my already snails-pace approach to a final mix. I've no doubt that for many people 96k will be much clearer and smoother. But, there is that trade-off of speed. I saw some video with either Tony Masserati or Manny Marroquin where he simply said he preferred 44.1 due to CPU and he also liked the slight grittiness to it. Can't remember the video but it convinced me that sample rate is not my biggest hurdle to being a better mix engineer. I imagine that computers will get to the point where it is no longer an issue. I saw the same video and have tried to find it again to share that sentiment with others on this topic. It was Manny Marroquin who said he thought there was a certain grit he preferred with 44.1K. I think it was one of the mixing with the masters videos, but there's more than one with him and I sure can't find it now. Kind of surprised me. I think the number of people going above 48k on this board is surprising. Unless you are doing a ton of classical material I doubt that it makes your recordings any better. Just my opinion, but there's so many other factors that make it sound good in the end, and the file sizes that your computer has to deal with just never seemed like a worthwhile trade off considering the gains.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 11, 2019 18:50:49 GMT -6
I never bought the “math is too hard argument”...they’re computers.
|
|
|
Post by delcampo on Apr 11, 2019 18:58:34 GMT -6
I might be in the minority here but, I feel the bottom end is more solid to my ears @44.1 ...that is, for bottom impact rock/indie/hip hop etc type styles. Or at least, I tend to prefer it. I think I remember Brian Lucey saying something similar if I'm not mistaken fwiw.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 11, 2019 19:18:05 GMT -6
Maybe I’m just hearing more of the issues with my equipment at 96khz. That damn equipment...always holding me back. Lol
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Apr 11, 2019 22:44:13 GMT -6
It you're using outboard gear. 96k makes a bigger difference I think.
Converters matter here though. Cheaper ones will fall on their face at higher sample rates.
Not going to make you a better mixer, I don't think anyone is claiming that. It just sounds more refined and open. I'd bet anyone that spends more time with it would like it more than 44.1 or 48.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Apr 11, 2019 23:13:48 GMT -6
Would Cirrus Logic converters be comparable to say... Apogee? Lynx? (just kidding on that one!) Chris
EDIT: I'm aware of the "Room first" Mantra, before you usually can fine point converter comparisons-like Cirrus Logic/Apogee. Just was curious.
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Apr 12, 2019 3:45:22 GMT -6
Is this not a bit of a familiarisation thing? We know 44.1 all too well and so mark everything against it? The dog listening to the gramophone heard "his master's voice" in the 1890s but if you listened to that gramophone now...
We all know it sounds different in the room to it coming out the speakers.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Apr 12, 2019 6:35:27 GMT -6
Maybe I’m just hearing more of the issues with my equipment at 96khz. That damn equipment...always holding me back. Lol Does 96K reveal more problems already existing or just reveal more that it causes, in some instances? If you don't detect the issues prior to tracking, then any issues that occur after the fact might be caused by the converters. Just spit-balling
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 12, 2019 6:47:50 GMT -6
Maybe I’m just hearing more of the issues with my equipment at 96khz. That damn equipment...always holding me back. Lol Does 96K reveal more problems already existing or just reveal more that it causes, in some instances? If you don't detect the issues prior to tracking, then any issues that occur after the fact might be caused by the converters. Just spit-balling There are soooo many variables. What I noticed it on was a session I’m mixing recorded elsewhere and I’m tracking the vocals. I have just noticed before that I thought vocals were just a little more strident at 96. But it could be a number of things: The girl is strident My gain staging is bad The mic is wrong for her The combo of the mic and pre I wrong I was over compressing There’s no Reverb in the cans because my HP queue system is adat and my adat routing gets funky in 96 I’m hearing things I’m hearing things I don’t hear at 44.1 and 48
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Apr 12, 2019 7:15:35 GMT -6
Very good points. Doesn't ADAT routing only work to 48K? After that, doesn't it just oversample?
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Apr 12, 2019 8:22:36 GMT -6
Having a nice computer with some horse power is critical. Have I mentioned that it's a lot easier and cost effective to do so if you're not married to Mac? Actually I have a new 10 core Imac Pro so Logic and Pro Tools see 20 cores/threads. It's ridiculously powerful. And I've been on Mac since 1997 so I won't be changing over.... although I am a little jealous of the performance some of you Windows guys can get. The problem for me is Acustica plugins, which are fantastic.... but at 96k are monsters. It only takes maxing out a single core to stop the transport with an error even though I'll still have 19 free cores just sitting there waiting for instructions. It's more a problem when chaining plugins on a single channel. And when chaining on the master bus obviously. PT cpu distribution in general is suspect. If you put 6 plugs on a single channel that 'almost' max it out and then create an Aux and feed it with that same channel and move half of the plugins to the Aux, your CPU usage goes way down. I wish they would make the routing cpu distribution 'smarter'. Are the Acustica plugs worth it 96k??, yes.... to me they are. So quite a bit of freezing and rerouting has to go on for me at 96k and I don't do every project at that sample rate, but I do hear a difference. Believe me, I didn't want to. This is my exact experience too with AA and my Mac Pro cheesegrater. I have been tracking/mixing at 96Khz lately and if you have good analog gear on the way in, it does sound more natural to me...subtly, but it’s different than 44.1 and 48.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 12, 2019 8:44:58 GMT -6
Some people grew to like the CD spec 44.1 k grit. That sound irritates me. 96 does sound a bit cleaner, but that could be the way certain plug-ins work in 96, and not necessarily true for all. My computer chokes at 96, or I'd use it all the time. When I get a new computer, I'll stay at 96.
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Apr 12, 2019 9:30:44 GMT -6
As has been mentioned, I'm sure it has to do with a number of factors. I have very few tracks and am focused on vocals. I use an RME MF II and there are progressively noticeable differences as I head up from 44.1k. By the time I get to 96k I hear a more solid low end, and overall the sound is smoother. Not sure if that means it's a better/wider sonic capture, or if in fact I'm losing or blurring detail at the higher rates. On my recordings 96k is not more clinical, but I haven't quite figured out if it's better. 48k seems to be a good balance.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 12, 2019 9:33:32 GMT -6
If I could figure out the adat thing to my headphone queue, I’d be much more likely to use it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 12, 2019 10:03:49 GMT -6
Very good points. Doesn't ADAT routing only work to 48K? After that, doesn't it just oversample? It switches to S/MUX2 which interleaves single channel data over two channel streams for higher bitrates. So you half the channels available by going to 88.2/96 with adat.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 12, 2019 10:07:38 GMT -6
I'd have to agree on this very much. I don't think the sample rate is preventing me from achieving better mixes. I mix completely ITB so i need a ton of horsepower to finish the mixes. Working at 96k forces me to bounce down or freeze tracks in order to continue mixing. Maybe it's just the way I mix but that slows down my already snails-pace approach to a final mix. I've no doubt that for many people 96k will be much clearer and smoother. But, there is that trade-off of speed. I saw some video with either Tony Masserati or Manny Marroquin where he simply said he preferred 44.1 due to CPU and he also liked the slight grittiness to it. Can't remember the video but it convinced me that sample rate is not my biggest hurdle to being a better mix engineer. I imagine that computers will get to the point where it is no longer an issue. I saw the same video and have tried to find it again to share that sentiment with others on this topic. It was Manny Marroquin who said he thought there was a certain grit he preferred with 44.1K. I think it was one of the mixing with the masters videos, but there's more than one with him and I sure can't find it now. Kind of surprised me. I think the number of people going above 48k on this board is surprising. Unless you are doing a ton of classical material I doubt that it makes your recordings any better. Just my opinion, but there's so many other factors that make it sound good in the end, and the file sizes that your computer has to deal with just never seemed like a worthwhile trade off considering the gains. I made the jump to 88.2 and it made a tremendous difference for me. I once believed that it didn't matter too, but I quickly found myself hearing much "more" that was not noticable before, and it made things easier in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 12, 2019 14:39:16 GMT -6
Interesting discussion, hmm I am using ob and plugs and everything else is the same except 44 vs 96. I think 96 seems slightly more open and natural? If a wav file has twice as many data points shouldn’t it sound better: smoother , pick your sonic adjective ?
|
|
|
Post by hio on Apr 12, 2019 16:35:49 GMT -6
Again, I was a cable matters guy after blind listening tests with a dozen or so cables over two decades ago. I was also polling audio engineers and producers around 15 years ago on major forums regarding sample rate conversion. Do some blind testing. It is amazing what the placebo effect can do to our ears when we think we can hear something because it is of a higher sample rate. I totally understand recording at higher sampling rates for archival purposes but for me personally I am sticking with 48 for now and believe it will make absolutely no difference whether it is a hit song or not. Also, remember what you hear in your studio with those $10,000.00 speakers and conversion @ 192 may not translate well to the average ipoder listening to who knows what. What was tape and vinyl really giving us when music sounded so good with noise and all,...and what we couldn't hear? Clinical? Why am I still using the AD-16X and I can afford any converter out there and still making wonderful sounding recordings? There is a lot of hype out there fueled by companies with sponsored AEs looking to make some moula so balance that with your accountant and CPA or don't. Put on your best headphones and your best DAC and be honest with yourself and others with this very *subjective* listening test or don't. www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 12, 2019 17:24:15 GMT -6
I usually find that I notice differences over time, so quick A-B tests can often be misleading. I take my time with a thing, and eventually I have an epiphany, I notice some quality I like or I don't and then react accordingly. I haven't been able to use 96k often enough to know for sure if I hear any differences.
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Apr 12, 2019 18:32:57 GMT -6
Actually I have a new 10 core Imac Pro so Logic and Pro Tools see 20 cores/threads. It's ridiculously powerful. And I've been on Mac since 1997 so I won't be changing over.... although I am a little jealous of the performance some of you Windows guys can get. The problem for me is Acustica plugins, which are fantastic.... but at 96k are monsters. It only takes maxing out a single core to stop the transport with an error even though I'll still have 19 free cores just sitting there waiting for instructions. It's more a problem when chaining plugins on a single channel. And when chaining on the master bus obviously. PT cpu distribution in general is suspect. If you put 6 plugs on a single channel that 'almost' max it out and then create an Aux and feed it with that same channel and move half of the plugins to the Aux, your CPU usage goes way down. I wish they would make the routing cpu distribution 'smarter'. Are the Acustica plugs worth it 96k??, yes.... to me they are. So quite a bit of freezing and rerouting has to go on for me at 96k and I don't do every project at that sample rate, but I do hear a difference. Believe me, I didn't want to. Yeah, I hear a lot of complaints about PT, as far as Acqua plugins go. Reaper is the way to go for that. Right, I've read that too. I picked up a copy of Reaper and messed around in there for a couple of days.... and it really is a pretty cool DAW. I'm just not fast enough in there to use it full time yet. At some point I'll do some efficiency testing between Reaper, Logic and PT.
|
|