|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 10, 2019 17:56:50 GMT -6
Or can it be too clinical?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 10, 2019 18:07:25 GMT -6
I seem to be preferring it.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Apr 10, 2019 18:15:05 GMT -6
I find it smoother... Whatever that means! I also feel like I don't have to work as hard getting elements to fit together. The bounce down to 44.1 on the 2 buss feels better to me as well.
It's very hard to objectively compare unless you multed a whole recording project to two separate machines recording at 44.1k and 96k.
When I jump back and forth between jobs that are at 44.1/48/96k I am always at ease with the 96k projects.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 10, 2019 18:16:36 GMT -6
Makes vintage gear breathe easier on the ears.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Apr 10, 2019 18:22:51 GMT -6
I definitely prefer 96k. There's just something about it that sounds more "right" and closer to the proverbial ideal of complete transparency.
DSD is the next rabbit hole I intend to go down one of these days if I can ever get around to purchasing one of those Tascam DA-3000s. I'm really interested in giving DSD a go for mixdown.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 10, 2019 19:08:13 GMT -6
My long in the tooth computer eventually chokes when I use 96k. Things seem just a bit clearer I think.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Apr 10, 2019 19:45:58 GMT -6
I go there from time to time but I tend to stick to 48k for most everything.
|
|
|
Post by nomatic on Apr 10, 2019 19:54:23 GMT -6
With my JCF A to Ds I like 44.1 just fine.... With the old Apogee's 88.2 was the best ... Depends on the box
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Apr 10, 2019 20:09:45 GMT -6
With my JCF A to Ds I like 44.1 just fine.... With the old Apogee's 88.2 was the best ... Depends on the box I feel like I would like ANY sample rate with the JCFs.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Apr 10, 2019 20:42:17 GMT -6
96k is the minimum I do. Everything sounds better
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Apr 10, 2019 22:06:30 GMT -6
I have to agree that things sound smoother and more open at 96k, especially when you start adding plugins versus doing the same at 44.1.
But it can be a pain in the ass as the mix grows larger.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Apr 10, 2019 22:09:41 GMT -6
I have to agree that things sound smoother and more open at 96k, especially when you start adding plugins. But it can be a pain in the ass as the mix grows larger. 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?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 10, 2019 22:56:04 GMT -6
Guess it’s just me
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Apr 10, 2019 23:07:16 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
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 23:09:29 GMT -6
I also prefer 96
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Apr 11, 2019 0:03:09 GMT -6
+1 for 96
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 11, 2019 0:24:30 GMT -6
I think it depends on converter maybe? I really don’t know if there is any kind of standard way of handling higher rates, but 44.1 needs low pass filters below 22k that could extend into the audio band, most converters use digital filters to low pass because it’s less audible in theory. But who really knows depends on the design.. the low pass filter for 44.1 could be audible if the knee extends into the audio band. . 96 *should* move those low pass filters up near 48k, not sure that all converters do this, as I’m also not sure if analog stages of all converters are designed to handle that. Testing required really. So if it does move any audible filters, 96khz will let you hear those higher frequencies that are masked at lower rates, IF they are masked. Aside from that, the clarity up top should improve very slightly at 96 due to more data/improved phase location of upper harmonics. That’s as far as I understand at this point.
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Apr 11, 2019 0:51:00 GMT -6
I have to agree that things sound smoother and more open at 96k, especially when you start adding plugins. But it can be a pain in the ass as the mix grows larger. 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.
|
|
|
Post by prene1 on Apr 11, 2019 4:50:18 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. I’m right with ya. PT and AA are the mood killers. So much so I’ve been on my OTB voyage and stick to nebula now. And yes I’ve done the reaper dance...... I bow out gracefully.
|
|
|
Post by swafford on Apr 11, 2019 5:59:13 GMT -6
I have to agree that things sound smoother and more open at 96k, especially when you start adding plugins. But it can be a pain in the ass as the mix grows larger. 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? Really depends on track count and what kind of plugs you use. I'm running 96k fine on a used 2012 Mac Mini I bought for $600: under 20 tracks, in Logic with a healthy sprinkling of Metric Halos Channel Strip, the occasional Gain plug, 12 I/O plugs, 2-4 reverbs on aux's (Nimbus or R4) and MH's MIO running, though minimized. Yep, there's not a lot of wiggle room, but it suits what I do fine.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Apr 11, 2019 7:33:05 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. Yeah, I hear a lot of complaints about PT, as far as Acqua plugins go. Reaper is the way to go for that.
|
|
|
Post by din on Apr 11, 2019 8:32:21 GMT -6
96 sounds better to me. I have a fast computer so I have no reason to go lower.
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Apr 11, 2019 9:06:35 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.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 11, 2019 9:43:40 GMT -6
I use 88.2K. I can hear a difference from 44.1 but almost no difference between 88.2 and 96k.
Sure, it might be too clinical, but you'll adapt to it by learning to avoid the things that make it sound too clinical.
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 11, 2019 10:18:19 GMT -6
Apart from all the good points made in this thread, I think it can depend on what style of music you're working on. For Rock and Metal recording/mixing I prefer the sound of 48k. A lot of AEs who send me those genres for mastering are also using 48k. Almost all Hip Hop comes to me at 44.1k.
|
|