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: 96k or 44.1 ?  (Read 6922 times)

rosshogarth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
96k or 44.1 ?
« on: June 25, 2011, 06:29:00 pm »

If you had a choice to master a hard rock record recorded at 44.1 24 bit
but
my mix rig is through a burl convertor and I can record at any sample rate
would you take the higher resolution ?

thoughts ?
Logged
The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution to the healing of the world.

The standard of success in life isn't the things. It isn't the money or the stuff. It is absolutely the amount of joy that you feel.

Greg Reierson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2011, 10:32:29 pm »

Higher sampling rates are great but not all that high up on the list of the most important things. Almost every aspect of the recording process: instruments, mic placement, mic choice, pre-amp, mixing platform, monitoring environment, effects, etc. are WAY more important. When everything else is absolutely perfect, then worry about your sampling rate, IMO.


GR
Logged
Greg Reierson
Rare Form Mastering

bblackwood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2011, 07:03:26 am »

I'd give them a listen to see if the Burl works 'better' on this material at one sampling frequency or the other, but wouldn't sweat it otherwise.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Laarsų

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Real Full Name: Laars Oglethorpe, V
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2011, 10:50:49 am »

If you had a choice to master a hard rock record recorded at 44.1 24 bit
but my mix rig is through a burl convertor and I can record at any sample rate
would you take the higher resolution ?

thoughts ?


Are you talking about premastering existing 44.1 kHz Fs mixes, or are you talking about capturing mix masters from a 44.1 kHz tracking session using an analog gear processing loop in your mix rig?   

If the latter, I'd suggest you use the highest rate that sounds great.  If the former, I'd suggest you capture at hi-rate only if you are going to limit _before_ SRC to whatever the target rate is.   If you're going to brick-limit at 44.1k, then just capture the premaster at that rate.


(CD "mastering" is done in Class 100 clean rooms.  Don't front. (;  )




Laarsų
Logged
Laars Oglethorpe, V
Space Camp CD Premastering
Pivot dub lab vinyl products and consulting

rosshogarth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2011, 02:30:59 pm »

let say it again
the record is ALREADY recorded at 44.1
I have a separate rig for mixdown
This is not the playback rig
I am mixing through an analog console so I am going into a burl convertor for my a/d to the mix rig
I can record the mixes at any sample rate I choose
and
I was wondering what as mastering engineers, you would optimally choose
a 44.1 file or a higher resolution file ?
Logged
The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution to the healing of the world.

The standard of success in life isn't the things. It isn't the money or the stuff. It is absolutely the amount of joy that you feel.

Table Of Tone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2011, 05:25:30 pm »

let say it again
the record is ALREADY recorded at 44.1
I have a separate rig for mixdown
This is not the playback rig
I am mixing through an analog console so I am going into a burl convertor for my a/d to the mix rig
I can record the mixes at any sample rate I choose
and
I was wondering what as mastering engineers, you would optimally choose
a 44.1 file or a higher resolution file ?
There are some converters that perform great at 44.1/48 but not so great at 88.2/96!
Some program material can also suit a higher SR, while other material doesn't.

I've not tried the Burl but here's what I'd do in your situation.

Choose one of the mixes and put it down through the Burl at 4824 and another one down at 9624.
Go with the sample rate that winds up sounding the closest to monitiring from the actual analog mixing desk.
Logged

Laarsų

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Real Full Name: Laars Oglethorpe, V
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2011, 07:43:26 pm »

l...
I am mixing through an analog console so I am going into a burl convertor for my a/d to the mix rig
I can record the mixes at any sample rate I choose
and
I was wondering what as mastering engineers, you would optimally choose
a 44.1 file or a higher resolution file ?

Aha.  Now I understand more clearly your question...
When we premaster files, we prefer to work from the highest sample rate source material.  If it sounds worse at 88.2k than it does at 44.1k, something's wrong...  Most recording converters sound better up high, and the premastering studio will have a way to alter the high res files to the target rate in a way that is least deleterious...   However, we also prefer that you have (all) been able to proof the mixes before premastering, since there will be, at minimum, a change of sample rate if going to CD.   This means proofing them at their native sample rate and level - with no as-if-already-premastered pluginz applied.  (;   Of course, ymmv, and if you end up liking the as-ifs better than the prų-mastered...  ???


Cheersų,
     Laarsų
Logged
Laars Oglethorpe, V
Space Camp CD Premastering
Pivot dub lab vinyl products and consulting

Ed Littman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
  • Real Full Name: Ed Littman
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2011, 08:39:28 pm »

I have heard the Burl & like what it does to a mix. With that said, what I heard probably is not related to the sample rate choice. So without hearing both passes at 44.1 & 96k to judge, the benefit would be more on your end & I would have no preference as to resolution.

Ed

Jerry Tubb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 172
  • Real Full Name: Jerry Tubb
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2011, 10:25:23 am »

My gut feeling on this is to go with 96k.

Since you're mixing thru the console and recapturing.

Best, JT
Logged
Terra Nova Mastering
Celebrating 25 years of Mastering!

djwaudio

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
  • Real Full Name: Dana J White
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2011, 11:04:51 am »

I'm not always happy with the sound of high sample rates. There seems to be a trade off to this ear. Though I do use the upsample feature in my tc 6000 limiter.

Care to post a mix of each and let us hear the difference?
I'd be willing to run them through my chain to make an informed comment.
Logged
Respectfully submitted,

Dana J White
Specialized Mastering
www.specializedmastering.com

saint

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Producer/Engineer/Mixer
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2011, 05:44:08 pm »

If you are only mixing, you will be forced to stay with a multiple of the original session, i.e., a 24/44.1 multitrack may be mixed to an outboard 2 channel master digital recorder to a multiple of 44.1, which is 88.2, 176.4 or sacd (2.8224MHz or 5.6448MHz, 1 bit). If the original session is at 48K then the available higher resolution multiples will be 96K or 192K. Personally, I have found that with a good professional converter (& clock) the higher the rate the better the resolution (sound)  to what is coming off the console. when I am not mixing to tape (only on those sessions that MUST go to digits for financial restraints) I prefer 24/176.4 because it is a simple multiple of the cd rate of 44.1 (Less interpolation going back down to the cd rate). The color that your HEAR in your mix room has more to do with the Master Clock & D to A playback converter than the rate. Some converters hype the bass (or other frequencies) making you THINK you have more bass (or other hyped frequencies) than there actually are in your mix (NOT unlike different brands of tape, bias settings & your actual levels). Most PROFESSIONAL Mastering rooms use the best clocks (i.e. Antelope Isochrone Atomic Clock) with the best converters, too (i.e., Pacific Microsonics @ 20K for 2 channels) so the playback there will differ considerably from most control rooms! Think about it... would you rather have 44.1 THOUSAND dollars in your bank or 176.4 thousand??? The SACD ups THAT ante to 5.6 MILLION! The main issue is that much above 24/176.4, once you squeeze it back down to the embarrassing sample rate of 44.1, it is really difficult to hear ANY difference in the rates above 24/176.4. MPFrees are not worth mentioning as they are not "professional" rates and are ONLY useful for telephonic reproduction.
Logged
Blue Skies!  Saint

Laarsų

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
  • Real Full Name: Laars Oglethorpe, V
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2011, 09:57:10 pm »

If you are only mixing, you will be forced to stay with a multiple of the original session...

I believe that Ross is going to be doing signal jacking.   He will send the analog outs of the multitrack DAC through the analog console and will capture the stereo master fader as 2 track digital and at whatever sample rate he pleases, be it 44.1-, 48-, or 2.8- based, yes?    This means that the master recorder for mix-down is free-wheeling - is not forced to be a multiple of the multitrack digital audio rate.  Furthermore, one could implement asynchronous real-time sample rate conversion of a digital mix with nice results if using, say, the SFC-2.



Cheersų,
     Laarsų
Logged
Laars Oglethorpe, V
Space Camp CD Premastering
Pivot dub lab vinyl products and consulting

Treelady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2011, 05:58:05 pm »

Think about it... would you rather have 44.1 THOUSAND dollars in your bank or 176.4 thousand???

That is not how PCM works.  More is not always better -  it's just more.   

Nyquist applied to us explains that PCM data contains all the audio information up to half of the sample rate frequency.  Thus, you're talking about a top end response of  176.4 / 2 =  88.2 kHz!  What audio content is even in the source material above 26 kHz.  And can humans hear it?  (The latest peer reviewed studies conclude negative).

Now, if you want to work at 176.4 because you think your plug-ins sound better or the filters on your converters sound better because of the shift, that is all fine with me.  And there are others in that camp.   

But implying that anything past 88.2k / 96k is better because its "more" - is not correct.   In fact, there are theories that the added burdon placed on DSP chips may lead to errors and distortions in the audio.  (But those are theories, and I don't know enough to speak about that being true or not).

And please what is your name?  So I can know whom I owe beers to at AES!!!!
Logged
______________________________________________
Garrett Haines
Chief Mastering Engineer, Treelady Studios, Pittsburgh, PA
Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine

bblackwood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2011, 10:13:54 pm »

And please what is your name?  So I can know whom I owe beers to at AES!!!!
That would be Ron Saint Germain, legendary producer / engineer and moderator of Whatever Works.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Treelady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: 96k or 44.1 ?
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2011, 02:14:43 pm »

That would be Ron Saint Germain, legendary producer / engineer and moderator of Whatever Works.

Well, you never know on the InternetS.   I once talked philosophy with "Ben Kenobi".
Logged
______________________________________________
Garrett Haines
Chief Mastering Engineer, Treelady Studios, Pittsburgh, PA
Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up