|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2024 13:02:20 GMT -6
Would there be benefit in taking say a session done at 48 and converting it to 96 and mixing? Obviously, it was tracked at 48, but at least that would lessen/stop aliasing with most plugs. Anyone do this? Am I completely over thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 13, 2024 14:07:46 GMT -6
It might make a difference if hardware were involved in your mixing process. I use an analog mix bus chain and sum with my console, so ensuring the mix chain is at a higher rate makes sense.
I know a lot of people like how certain plugins react at higher sampling rates, you should consider that as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by noob on Feb 13, 2024 14:47:11 GMT -6
I mix 44.1 and 48k stems at 96K all the time. It sounds great, no problem at all with it. Many plugins will process the audio better at 96K. See here: www.ryanschwabe.com/blog/96k |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2024 15:17:25 GMT -6
I guess I'd just consolidate files and then import them into a 96khz session and it would convert, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by noob on Feb 13, 2024 15:25:07 GMT -6
I guess I'd just consolidate files and then import them into a 96khz session and it would convert, right? Yep that should work. I don't usually have to do anything to the files, just import them into the session and it's good to go. |
|
|
|
Post by lee on Feb 13, 2024 16:35:15 GMT -6
I guess I'd just consolidate files and then import them into a 96khz session and it would convert, right? If you're in Pro Tools, I would do this: Open a new session in 96k. Import Session Data from the source session (all tracks you need) and let it convert on Tweakhead, this way you save the existing edits, it just SRCs the underlying files to 96. Mix in 32 bit float for headroom benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2024 16:36:57 GMT -6
I guess I'd just consolidate files and then import them into a 96khz session and it would convert, right? If you're in Pro Tools, I would do this: Open a new session in 96k. Import Session Data from the source session (all tracks you need) and let it convert on Tweakhead, this way you save the existing edits, it just SRCs the underlying files to 96. Mix in 32 bit float for headroom benefits. Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Feb 13, 2024 17:02:20 GMT -6
For years Dan advocated working at 44 or 48 because of IMD. He said there was no way to get rid of it. Then he got a new computer and went up to 96k and never answered my question as to why he did that as far as I can remember. The Dan Worrell video about sample rates showed that 44k with upsampling plugins was perfectly fine. That's what I do until I want to do a final master with hardware. At 44k, I don't think I'm using a lot of plugins that don't upsample. Satin, UAD 1176 blue, some UAD FX, PA 902, UAD CV, UAD Harrison. Not sure if Softube Trident A Range upsamples. Basslane Pro is linear phase and I imagine it does whatever it needs to do. There are a lot of plugins that still alias pretty noticeably at 96k if I recall. But it all boils down to if you like the way something sounds in the way that you're using it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 1:28:49 GMT -6
Actually using HW is a great reason not to use higher sampling rates. Simplest way to put it, microphones only work within the realms of human hearing and any ultrasonic junk gets cut. Hardware is exactly the same, an LA-2A's frequency range for example is 30Hz - 15Khz and if you tracked an entire song through that device you've essentially low passed everything without ever even knowing it. I've not heard of any mixing or mastering HW that doesn't at least conform to 20Hz - 20Khz (the range of human hearing) and I'm really not sure why you'd do it differently, I mean unless you're creating songs for cats & dogs?
That's the thing, specific types of HW does a lot for you before we even get to the mixing part. With ITB though you need to think about these things, we had the obsessive technical focus conversation on the other thread which is one thing. However there are multiple successive additions within ITB that can essentially trainwreck a track and it's ideal to be aware of it.
When considering sample rates, yes there is more IMD at higher sample rates but it reduces aliasing artifacts. However most decent plugins oversample to at least 192Khz minimum, take TDR for example precise mode is 200Khz and insane is 400Khz. 96Khz minimises the impact, although it doesn't completely fix the issue so why bother with 96Khz? I think one of the reasons is the premise that the plugin in question might not be all that good. It's a reasonable train of thought to be fair, however you'd have to record at 192Khz to truly get round the problem but that adds its own issues.
Here's Shadow's guide to happy days ITB.
> Gainstaging, green always equals good. A DAW is not a tape machine or a tube compressor, you're not going to get sweet soft clipping in magical non-linear ways, yes I know that with these fancy 32 or 64 bit floating point engines the amount of headroom is insane but that's more of a reason not to clip. If you're chaining plugins keep them all at -18dB, yes one can use a limiter, compressor or softclipper and crank the input but the output to the virtual mixing desk or next plug should never really reach orange and certainly never red.
> ADC, never assume that automatic delay correction is doing exactly what you want. Quick test is an audio track bussed to an aux, is there any phase? Second add a plugin to the Aux, is there any phase? Lastly add a different plugin to the audio track, is there any phase? Don't even get me started on the Pro Tools compensation matrix for it's internal mixer, let's just say it's generally best to bus everything to an Aux and leave master channels the frick alone.
> Choose good plugins with oversampling and 44.1Khz will never be an issue, there's plenty out there. UA, Tokyo Dawn, Cytomic, DMG, Voxengo etc.
> On the point above, you're not going to entirely eliminate distortions of every kind and we have our favourite VSTI's that might not in a technical sense be amazing. However the point is to minimise the impact, not remove it entirely so at a certain point don't worry about it. Crack on..
> I would take 30 minutes to read a plugins manual especially if it's complex like Ozone, there's usually some hidden option that fixes problems.
> Dither on the output.
> Avoid Pro Tools if you don't want to go bankrupt or bald.
|
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Feb 14, 2024 3:15:23 GMT -6
Go high.
Don't look back.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Feb 14, 2024 8:21:29 GMT -6
After being 88k2/96k for years, I have to admit to being firmly 48k in the last year or 2. The differences that existed for me came down purely to the converters, and I don’t really hear problems with my 48k like i did with older converters. In fact I had one session started at 88k2 that got so bloated (dozens of takes of 50ish songs) that i down-converted to 48k after the first dozen or so were complete. No appreciable sonic difference. Maybe none. FWIW. If I pull up old converter sessions done at both low and high, i can hear it, so apparently it’s not tin ear effect creeping in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 9:01:20 GMT -6
After being 88k2/96k for years, I have to admit to being firmly 48k in the last year or 2. The differences that existed for me came down purely to the converters, and I don’t really hear problems with my 48k like i did with older converters. In fact I had one session started at 88k2 that got so bloated (dozens of takes of 50ish songs) that i down-converted to 48k after the first dozen or so were complete. No appreciable sonic difference. Maybe none. FWIW. If I pull up old converter sessions done at both low and high, i can hear it, so apparently it’s not tin ear effect creeping in. Yep, a long, long time ago I had an Echo Audiofrier.. I mean I don't think it sounded great @ 96Khz but it was better than 44  .. Not much of an issue nowaday's though. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 14, 2024 9:31:38 GMT -6
I record and mix at 88.2K. Even stuff that is sent to me at 44.1 or 48K get mixed at 88.2K.
Reaper does upsampling automatically, so I don't have to do anything special, just drop the track into the project and it's already resampled to the higher sample rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Feb 14, 2024 9:34:08 GMT -6
If you're monitoring thru your DAW or using VIs during tracking, higher sample rates also have the added benefit of lower monitoring latency. Which is worth something.
|
|
|
|
Post by noob on Feb 14, 2024 9:36:22 GMT -6
I record and mix at 88.2K. Even stuff that is sent to me at 44.1 or 48K get mixed at 88.2K. Reaper does upsampling automatically, so I don't have to do anything special, just drop the track into the project and it's already resampled to the higher sample rate. I know a few people who mix at 88.2 as opposed to 96. Do you find any specific benefit as opposed to 96? I always either go with 96 (or 48 if it's a very large project), knowing that 48 would be the minimum for film + sync applications. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 14, 2024 9:59:40 GMT -6
I record and mix at 88.2K. Even stuff that is sent to me at 44.1 or 48K get mixed at 88.2K. Reaper does upsampling automatically, so I don't have to do anything special, just drop the track into the project and it's already resampled to the higher sample rate. I know a few people who mix at 88.2 as opposed to 96. Do you find any specific benefit as opposed to 96? I always either go with 96 (or 48 if it's a very large project), knowing that 48 would be the minimum for film + sync applications. I used to think that mixing and rendering at 88.2K would make it easier to resample to 44.1K back when I used to actually work mostly for CD releases. At some point in time it might have been true that the drop from 88.2K to 44.1K was actually more accurate and/or easier on the computer, but today's resampling is so good and normal that there's no technical reason to worry about it anymore. I also wanted to save *some* disk space and never really heard much difference between 96K and 88.2K. Now it's just how I work so there's no specific reason I use it anymore other than it's what everything is set up for. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 14, 2024 11:12:11 GMT -6
I know a few people who mix at 88.2 as opposed to 96. Do you find any specific benefit as opposed to 96? I always either go with 96 (or 48 if it's a very large project), knowing that 48 would be the minimum for film + sync applications. I used to think that mixing and rendering at 88.2K would make it easier to resample to 44.1K back when I used to actually work mostly for CD releases. At some point in time it might have been true that the drop from 88.2K to 44.1K was actually more accurate and/or easier on the computer, but today's resampling is so good and normal that there's no technical reason to worry about it anymore. I also wanted to save *some* disk space and never really heard much difference between 96K and 88.2K. Now it's just how I work so there's no specific reason I use it anymore other than it's what everything is set up for. There was a Paul Frindle post on GS that (as best I recall) stated that the 88.2 to 44.1 conversion was not in fact somehow more accurate or desirable. That said, I have tried and failed a few times to find that post. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Feb 14, 2024 11:45:37 GMT -6
I record and mix at 88.2K. Even stuff that is sent to me at 44.1 or 48K get mixed at 88.2K. Reaper does upsampling automatically, so I don't have to do anything special, just drop the track into the project and it's already resampled to the higher sample rate. I know a few people who mix at 88.2 as opposed to 96. Do you find any specific benefit as opposed to 96? I always either go with 96 (or 48 if it's a very large project), knowing that 48 would be the minimum for film + sync applications. Conversion math isn't a problem like we used to think. Mainly that it's roughly 10% less data. Then there was the era many things didn't have chips that did 88k2 only 96k, that seems ancient history now. Some say plugs are optimized for 96K versus other rates; maybe, seems pretty in the weeds to me, that's WAY down the list of things that make a good sounding project, probably close to last. |
|
|
|
Post by noob on Feb 14, 2024 11:48:04 GMT -6
I know a few people who mix at 88.2 as opposed to 96. Do you find any specific benefit as opposed to 96? I always either go with 96 (or 48 if it's a very large project), knowing that 48 would be the minimum for film + sync applications. Conversion math isn't a problem like we used to think. Mainly that it's roughly 10% less data. Then there was the era many things didn't have chips that did 88k2 only 96k, that seems ancient history now. Some say plugs are optimized for 96K versus other rates; maybe, seems pretty in the weeds to me, that's WAY down the list of things that make a good sounding project, probably close to last. Good point, I think a lot of opinions on this topic have changed vastly over the past 10 years, at least from what I've read online. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2024 12:03:42 GMT -6
I wouldn't think any math is more difficult. It's a computer.
Pro Tools apparently upsamples the files when you import the session data...
So, I mixed on at 96. I didn't really hear anything where I thought it sounded tremendously better? As Shadow said above, probably just making sure you're using plugs that oversample at 48 and you're fine. Just thinking out loud - I need to play around with reverb more...seems like that's where I really felt like I've noticed differences in the past...in the reverb tails. It was nice to finally have a computer that didn't huff and puff, that's for sure. But I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze for converting from lower SRs. I could be convinced though.
|
|
|
|
Post by noob on Feb 14, 2024 12:39:32 GMT -6
I wouldn't think any math is more difficult. It's a computer. Pro Tools apparently upsamples the files when you import the session data... So, I mixed on at 96. I didn't really hear anything where I thought it sounded tremendously better? As Shadow said above, probably just making sure you're using plugs that oversample at 48 and you're fine. Just thinking out loud - I need to play around with reverb more...seems like that's where I really felt like I've noticed differences in the past...in the reverb tails. It was nice to finally have a computer that didn't huff and puff, that's for sure. But I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze for converting from lower SRs. I could be convinced though. The biggest difference I hear when mixing in 96k as opposed to 48 or 44.1 is in the transient detail and transient spacing. I don't think the sound quality is "better" at 96k, but the transients are less generalized. Sometimes, the type of music will dictate whether that is actually an important aspect for me to care about. Some music is supposed to be very energetic and tight, and I may mix in 48 just because 96 feels too open. I find it effects the generalization of the drum rhythms the most. For example, a snare ambience or spacing might feel the slightest bit more natural in 96 than 48. This is only my observation, so I couldn't tell you the science behind it, but it's just what I've noticed. The transients just seem to have more space around them, if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 14, 2024 13:10:48 GMT -6
I wouldn't think any math is more difficult. It's a computer. Pro Tools apparently upsamples the files when you import the session data... So, I mixed on at 96. I didn't really hear anything where I thought it sounded tremendously better? As Shadow said above, probably just making sure you're using plugs that oversample at 48 and you're fine. Just thinking out loud - I need to play around with reverb more...seems like that's where I really felt like I've noticed differences in the past...in the reverb tails. It was nice to finally have a computer that didn't huff and puff, that's for sure. But I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze for converting from lower SRs. I could be convinced though. I always seem to notice it on reverb tails and acoustic instrments. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2024 13:22:14 GMT -6
I wouldn't think any math is more difficult. It's a computer. Pro Tools apparently upsamples the files when you import the session data... So, I mixed on at 96. I didn't really hear anything where I thought it sounded tremendously better? As Shadow said above, probably just making sure you're using plugs that oversample at 48 and you're fine. Just thinking out loud - I need to play around with reverb more...seems like that's where I really felt like I've noticed differences in the past...in the reverb tails. It was nice to finally have a computer that didn't huff and puff, that's for sure. But I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze for converting from lower SRs. I could be convinced though. I always seem to notice it on reverb tails and acoustic instrments. It's almost like the attacks and releases are more prominent. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 14, 2024 13:27:44 GMT -6
I always seem to notice it on reverb tails and acoustic instrments. It's almost like the attacks and releases are more prominent. Yeah. I just feel like the higher rates (I usually run 88.2) just give you more to work with. |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Feb 14, 2024 15:19:47 GMT -6
I tend to like 88.2 or 96 for the type of stuff I work on, but not always. I guess Dan Lavry's comments on 60k being ideal and giving the nod to 88.2 or 96 as the closet then that's alright with me. Not sure how much higher rates affect aliasing on non-oversampling plugins but I think most plugs do oversample now(or have the option). Recording at higher rates seems to sound a little better to me for acoustic material. I do appreciate that my mac mini doesn't choke at 441 or 48 as much. lol. I can always very quickly downsample with RX in batch processing mode. I was under the impression that some of the detractors of lower rates is avoided when recording at higher rates, and is somewhat retained when downsampling afterwards, which I don't pretend to understand. Sample rate is pretty low on the list of sonic impact though. Lynx Aurora(n) over here, btw.
|
|
.. Not much of an issue nowaday's though.
