TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Do you work in 44.1 or 96khz?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you're knocking out disposable EDM, in your bedroom, all just existing samples or midi, with entry level speakers and a consumer DAC, then just work at 44.1 as you'll not ever hear the difference.

Got it, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you're knocking out disposable EDM, in your bedroom, all just existing samples or midi, with entry level speakers and a consumer DAC, then just work at 44.1 as you'll not ever hear the difference.

You think no quality stuff comes from those types of studios any longer? Just curious.

24 bit might make a difference if the music is dynamic. Dance is nt. Standard track has an rms was above the k reference that it just doesn't matter. There was a huge fight over this about 2 years ago. Not sure who won. I argued you don't. Most engineers would disagree. People watch movies in hifi settings. I've see. People at raves still dancing when the pa turned off because the dj did something stupid. So ya.

quote:

Originally posted by mfitterer1 You think no quality stuff comes from those types of studios any longer? Just curious.

no, I do - I'm making the point that incredibly minute increases in quality gleaned from better technology in parts of the signal chain, will not be perceived, used or realised, when every other part in that chain, as well as the instruments used, the talent playing it and listening environment are not all perfect in terms quality.

I'm saying there's not point using 96k in a bedroom with no treatment, or on shitty monitors, or for people who can't play for shit.

Guetta tracks still make me want to vomit, regardless of sample rate.

That's a great video Eddie thanks for posting. Believe it or not there's a small basement venue here outfitted with funktion-one speakers. Amazing sound system, probably the best in the city (seriously) Dude has put a lot of time and effort and money into it and it's something of an honor to play there.

I'm compiling a live set with this venue in mind. I've been doing a lot of testing, A/B ing and so on and I swear to god I can hear a difference. Maybe it's just the way the plugins are processing the audio but 96khz just seems 'crisper' or 'brighter' to me even on my HS80s with zero room treatment. Really stresses the computer though. I've been doing most of the work in 44.1 then switching over and freezing the tracks prior to bouncing, that seems to work well and if you don't work with samples or anything conversion isn't an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by meriter That's a great video Eddie thanks for posting. Believe it or not there's a small basement venue here outfitted with funktion-one speakers. Amazing sound system, probably the best in the city (seriously) Dude has put a lot of time and effort and money into it and it's something of an honor to play there. I'm compiling a live set with this venue in mind. I've been doing a lot of testing, A/B ing and so on and I swear to god I can hear a difference. Maybe it's just the way the plugins are processing the audio but 96khz just seems 'crisper' or 'brighter' to me even on my HS80s with zero room treatment. Really stresses the computer though. I've been doing most of the work in 44.1 then switching over and freezing the tracks prior to bouncing, that seems to work well and if you don't work with samples or anything conversion isn't an issue.

YES!!

cant hear 96 so no point 44.1 will do

I record every track directly to vinyl and arrange it with a scalpel. Suck it, Burial.

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo shame on me, I'm still at 16/44.1 after all those years, except when working for video which requires 48.

16!?

Same as Lolo here.

I could never tell a difference, so whateva.

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik Suck it, Burial.

And how.

48 24 here .

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney 48 24 here .

I think you mean 48, 32bit float. (or for the actual format of recording and samples I suppose 24).

same shit. I suppose logic is 32 bit float but they are the same in the end.

Alright, so there's nyquist theorem, read that as posted here. As for sample rates, you have several choices:

44.1
48
88.2
96
... and beyond.

44.1/88.2 are more about music/audio specifically, whereas 48/96 are audio with video (like dvd's play back at a 48khz sample rate). The general rule of thumb is, you'll get better sample rate conversion if you use a direct multiple of your target sample rate, that is, theoretically, 88.2 will translate to 44.1 better than 96khz will. I could probably use some more research on this, but I've read this a number of places.

Now, at the end of the day, unless you end up rocking some SACD action, you are going to play back at 44.1/16bit audio, so what's the point of working in higher sample/bit rates?

There are a couple things they can help with prior to this, for example, working in higher sample rates can reduce aliasing issues:

http://www.earlevel.com/main/1996/1...at-is-aliasing/

And there's more to it than that, but in short it sort of helps you preserve your sounds integrity throughout.. well, everything. At mastering the mastering engineer ideally will get the highest quality goods he can (88.2/24bit), then he has the most to work with and will usually apply the best methods possible at getting you back to 44.1/16bit.

Anyways, Bob Katz's book on mastering goes into this a bit and its a real good read. I think for the average person its not *too* important, but if you've got the horsepower to do it, you should, but work at 88.2, not 96.

Tons of reading on this, here's a discussion on 88.2 vs 96:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/48523-6-sampling-rate

i know this idiot that works at 192. I say idiot because like his computer is struggling, his D/A chain involves some awesome M Audio monitors. And he is always bitching about computer power but says, i will not sacrifice fidelity. I am a purist. I know him. We aren't friends.

HIs final output is mp3. Never leaves the digital realm. And he is 45, still wears metal tshirts and ya. Just an allround mong in that he never shuts up about it. OH and the quotes are just well., let me think, ya like well i could do 96, but i'm missing out on all that air. That what ? You know Air. Magical fairy dust. lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney i know this idiot that works at 192. I say idiot because like his computer is struggling, his D/A chain involves some awesome M Audio monitors. And he is always bitching about computer power but says, i will not sacrifice fidelity. I am a purist. I know him. We aren't friends. HIs final output is mp3. Never leaves the digital realm. And he is 45, still wears metal tshirts and ya. Just an allround mong in that he never shuts up about it. OH and the quotes are just well., let me think, ya like well i could do 96, but i'm missing out on all that air. That what ? You know Air. Magical fairy dust. lol.

He can probably tell the difference between a WAV and 320kbps MP3 as well

quote:

Originally posted by vt100 Alright, so there's nyquist theorem, read that as posted here. As for sample rates, you have several choices: 44.1 48 88.2 96 ... and beyond. 44.1/88.2 are more about music/audio specifically, whereas 48/96 are audio with video (like dvd's play back at a 48khz sample rate). The general rule of thumb is, you'll get better sample rate conversion if you use a direct multiple of your target sample rate, that is, theoretically, 88.2 will translate to 44.1 better than 96khz will. I could probably use some more research on this, but I've read this a number of places. Now, at the end of the day, unless you end up rocking some SACD action, you are going to play back at 44.1/16bit audio, so what's the point of working in higher sample/bit rates? There are a couple things they can help with prior to this, for example, working in higher sample rates can reduce aliasing issues: http://www.earlevel.com/main/1996/1...at-is-aliasing/ And there's more to it than that, but in short it sort of helps you preserve your sounds integrity throughout.. well, everything. At mastering the mastering engineer ideally will get the highest quality goods he can (88.2/24bit), then he has the most to work with and will usually apply the best methods possible at getting you back to 44.1/16bit. Anyways, Bob Katz's book on mastering goes into this a bit and its a real good read. I think for the average person its not *too* important, but if you've got the horsepower to do it, you should, but work at 88.2, not 96. Tons of reading on this, here's a discussion on 88.2 vs 96: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/48523-6-sampling-rate

As discussed slightly earlier in this thread (and others) your assumptions are a little off.

Yes, in theory working at a multiple of the eventual target sample rate should in some ways make dithering down easier/more accurate but unfortunatle a simple linear average of samples in sequence does not give completely accurate results.

More importantly, the maths for going from any sample rate to another is not a difficult or really complicated task and will get you as perfect a result as using a simple linear calc like going from a direct multiple. Anyone who says different is just talking theoretical audiophile bullshit. I could get way deep in to the reasons why, but let's just leave it at the fact that ragrdless of methods, the main issue is how interpolation and anit-aliasing works, which at that level of sample rate is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other - in essence there is no advantage to choosing 88.2 instead of 96, and especially not because it's a nice round number.

The only real arguments for working at higher sample rates are:

1, If you're entire project is at 96k and you have a pristine signal path and monitoring setup, and you have great hearing and engineering skills, then you will be able to hear some degree of better detail, and therefore produce to a better level of detail. If any one of those things is not perfect then there's no benefit, apart from...
2, Technology is always changing, and having those projects at a sample rate might be of benefit in the future, in case the defacto consumer sample rate standard gets set higher.

However, you're waaaaay off base with the bit depth thing - you should always record and work in as high a bit depth as possible (24 is fine) as bit depth is directly relative to the volume and inherant noise floor. So even if you're eventually going down to 16bit the advantages of having that extra headroom in the initial recording will transfer as a benefit to the lower bit depth due to the expanded initial headroom of the recording.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN However, you're waaaaay off base with the bit depth thing - you should always record and work in as high a bit depth as possible (24 is fine) as bit depth is directly relative to the volume and inherant noise floor. So even if you're eventually going down to 16bit the advantages of having that extra headroom in the initial recording will transfer as a benefit to the lower bit depth due to the expanded initial headroom of the recording.

Hey, good post sir and thanks for the information. I fully agree with you on bitdepth. I re-read my post and realized that I touched on bit depth in a way that was wholly incorrect when I was really trying to focus on the sample rate discussion.

Audiophile bullshit makes sense when you consider most of the reading I've done on this is relative to the mastering folks. I can't keep up with them half the time anyhow

audiophile and mastering are really not in any way synonyms. MAstering engineers accept the final format as the job prescribes. Video games are mixed for logitech speakers. They are much more compressed than say a similar hybrid orchestral score for film. Audiophiles tend to not really know anything except that expense means good and the higher the number , the better.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.