R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: sample rate debate  (Read 6150 times)

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2009, 08:43:58 am »

NelsonL wrote on Thu, 10 December 2009 13:18

IMP sample rate errors are funny, but if your ME pulls that on you... run.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but SRC seems moot if your mastering with an analog chain or printing your mixes to tape, as I prefer to do.

In either of those cases, your ME may or may not SRC, depending on their work flow. In every case, they'll do what they think sounds the best-- as should we all.


Mixing ITB is very common for a lot of people, in particular around here.

Creating a multitrack at 48 is not an ideal thing to do if it is not destined for analog.

If you have complete control of a project and it is your own, do as you will.

But as an engineer for hire, creating a 48k project for a client is not a such a good idea.

r
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2009, 09:56:03 am »

robdarling@mail.com wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 05:43

NelsonL wrote on Thu, 10 December 2009 13:18

IMP sample rate errors are funny, but if your ME pulls that on you... run.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but SRC seems moot if your mastering with an analog chain or printing your mixes to tape, as I prefer to do.

In either of those cases, your ME may or may not SRC, depending on their work flow. In every case, they'll do what they think sounds the best-- as should we all.


Mixing ITB is very common for a lot of people, in particular around here.

Creating a multitrack at 48 is not an ideal thing to do if it is not destined for analog.

If you have complete control of a project and it is your own, do as you will.

But as an engineer for hire, creating a 48k project for a client is not a such a good idea.

r



Mixing ITB is moot though, unless you're effectively mastering the thing yourself, there's no need to SRC anything other than a ref.

From another standpoint, given the amount of home recording going on these days, including projects that have professionally tracked basics, I can see how creating a session at a sample rate above 48k could be a bad idea. I'd rather work at 44.1 or 48 than have the masters SRC'd.

I can see your point Rob, but given the popularity of 48k sessions, I'd expect any engineer for hire to handle even an unlabeled session correctly. In fact, that's just one more way in which IMP is a great learning tool.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2009, 02:55:08 pm »

i guess i just don't see how it matters. 44.1 or 48.  why is one a good idea or bad idea?

88.2 and 96 sound better to me.  but i honestly just don't care.  if you send me something to work on, it is what it is, and i'll do the best job i can either way.
Logged

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2009, 04:14:22 pm »

Remember D-88s? I think it was more relevant in those days.
Logged

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2009, 07:24:41 am »

NelsonL wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:56

robdarling@mail.com wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 05:43

NelsonL wrote on Thu, 10 December 2009 13:18

IMP sample rate errors are funny, but if your ME pulls that on you... run.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but SRC seems moot if your mastering with an analog chain or printing your mixes to tape, as I prefer to do.

In either of those cases, your ME may or may not SRC, depending on their work flow. In every case, they'll do what they think sounds the best-- as should we all.


Mixing ITB is very common for a lot of people, in particular around here.

Creating a multitrack at 48 is not an ideal thing to do if it is not destined for analog.

If you have complete control of a project and it is your own, do as you will.

But as an engineer for hire, creating a 48k project for a client is not a such a good idea.

r



Mixing ITB is moot though, unless you're effectively mastering the thing yourself, there's no need to SRC anything other than a ref.

I can see your point Rob, but given the popularity of 48k sessions, I'd expect any engineer for hire to handle even an unlabeled session correctly. In fact, that's just one more way in which IMP is a great learning tool.



It's not moot.  Unless your ME has two separate sets of DA and two mastering rigs- one to play out of and one to record back into- they will be performing SRC.  This may likely be an eventuality.

As for counting on the intelligence of anyone other than yourself expecting other people to figure out that you are working outside of standard (and working at 48k for music is not standard), this is not a great practice.  

This is what standards are for- to make sure that when you share your work, it will have the maximum value.
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2009, 07:33:13 am »

j.hall wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 19:55

i guess i just don't see how it matters. 44.1 or 48.  why is one a good idea or bad idea?

88.2 and 96 sound better to me.  but i honestly just don't care.  if you send me something to work on, it is what it is, and i'll do the best job i can either way.


If you send a 48k project to an ME they may likely need to SRC.  This will affect the sound.  If you work at 44.1, it will not require this.

If you work at 48, other people who inherit the project may not realize and it will be a problem.  You cannot count on the intelligence of other people.  

Working at 48 than 44.1 is not better in any case, it is just different, since it has just as much aliasing and phase shift, if you are even using gear that has enough problems for the difference to be audible.  So making the decision to create potential issues downstream is not a good idea for what is in fact just changing the tone of the problem, not fixing it.

As for working at higher sample rates- yes, it will make it much easier to mix digital source material by pushing two of the prime issues of digital recording- phase shift and aliasing with brickwall filters- out of the audible band.
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

Rob Darling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2009, 07:40:16 am »

NelsonL wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 21:14

Remember D-88s? I think it was more relevant in those days.


Yes, early 90's prosumer digital sucked.  

r
Logged
____________________
rob darling
rob@robdarling.net
www.robdarling.net

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: sample rate debate
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2009, 11:19:19 pm »

So Rob, if I understand you correctly, the professional standard (in your estimation, or is this an AES thing or what?) is that you can use any sample rate except 48k for music?

Here's a thread in which several regular PSW contributing MEs discuss running their "capture" AD/DA at 24/44.1 -- I think this is more common than your post would suggest. As you can see, it doesn't necessarily require a complete "second rig," although approaches differ:

    http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/29426/0/0/ 898/

Now, all that being said, I have to admit that the album I've been helping sequence this week is a mix of 44.1 and 88.2, and the difference in just the reference mp3 files is enough to get me thinking of moving back up again.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up