| Author
|
one doubt for reking at 96 khz at logic audio
|
High Pulse
Darkpsy
Started Topics :
57
Posts :
1187
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 01:53
|
nno babba ... in case u dont know . even if u dont heara does ultra freq .. they are still there when u rek them ... so .. when u give the track at 96khz 24 bit 32 bit whatever to the sound enginner .. when he do the master he profits from more freq used .. so the final master .. even if it out at 44100 16 bit .... it can give a bether shape and sonority to the music .. ask that to any sound enginner 
boom .. |
|
|
schuenck
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
21
Posts :
56
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 04:48
|
maybe u can change the rate, after it bounced, with sound forge, just save as u want...
 trie not to thinck racionaly right now... |
|
|
|
Triptocoma
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
296
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 12:36
|
I still believe that it wont make any difference if you dont keep it as a single process... and that is if you record all your sounds in 24/96khz.. keep your project as 24/96khz audio files all the way to the end... burn the whole mix as 24/96khz and send it to the lable
dont dither back and forth... a 44100 project wont gain anything from dithering to 96khz in the end.. thats what i believe... but i can be wrong
we all know what solipt1c told us....
"not many people claim that using 96khz or 192khz is important because we need to reproduce frequencies of 95khz.
the only people who are saying that are misinformed morons
i think for all intents and purposes something like 24 bit / 48khz would adequately capture anything for a human to hear.
BUT...
the reason we go well beyond it to avoid mathematical errors creeping in as we manipulate and combine multiple audio signals. if you do all your recording and processing at 16/44.1 then you get all sorts of problems, because you are working right up against the limits."
|
|
|
|
orik
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
45
Posts :
317
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 16:02
|
if you record at 96khz 24bit and then
convert it to 44100 16bit for a disc
it would sound better, you sampled more
samples per second, and with a bigger
dynamic range (24 bit) so it would sound
better after the convertion... |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 17:34
|
|
orik
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
45
Posts :
317
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 17:56
|
sorry....i didnt see that.....  |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 18:17
|
Generally about samplefreq and bit depth:
The laws of digital audio states that you need a sample frequency double of the audio you want to represent.
Now if you think about it that means that a signal in the top of the hearable range will be sampled two times per cycle.
Obviously we still get a decent impression of those frequencies, but the waveforms turn out very rough compared to the original.
Using 96k would make say a 16khz signal look very different than using 44.1
There is always some rounding errors when doing processing of audio digitallư.
Using higher resolution than the end format will help keeping the signal as intact as possible.
If you should release on DVD you should therefore preferably be working 32bit 192khz.
I don't bother with the extra strain of using 96k yet, but 24bit is good to stick to.
The problem with working with 16bit audio is that the sequencers work in 24-32bit.
To use the 16bit audio tracks with the sequencer you have two choices:
Truncate the audio from 24 to 16bit or to dither it down. (triptocoma...dithering has only to do with bit depth, not sample freq)
Truncating down to a new bit depth is generally not recommended, and dithering every track on your sequencer is also not good.
If you don't have a very slow harddrive or using huge amounts of audio tracks, you gain CPU performance in working 24bit as well.
Now to demand to recieve 96k masters from artist sounds completly out.
Is it your side project recording symphonic orcestras or.....?
I always had problem getting 24bit files from many artists, or even a unmastered 16bit.....
If they insist on a 96k master, just reample the whole track and send it like that....you wont loose quality since the guy at least must be using 96k equipment to master it and will have to convert it somehow anyway. And probably he wont notice any difference
|
|
|
|
Triptocoma
Inactive User
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
296
Posted : Sep 30, 2004 20:50
|
Thanks for the explaination Leo
will read up on these things for sure...
|
|
|
|
Psyrap
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
70
Posted : Oct 1, 2004 19:05
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-09-29 23:05, Mike A wrote:
Why does he need it at 96khz? Are you releasing it in DVD?
|
|
he just answered that!!!!!! |
|
|
|
