| Author
|
Working in 48000hz?!
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 17:56
|
I'd ordered a new sound card which i just got today..i started a project earlier on in SX but for some reason i could only work in 48000hz which i figured must've been due to my laptop internal soundcard..
now when i installed the soundcard & opened the project i can choose the default 44100hz setting but all the audio has gone out of sync, like i'd changed the bpm..
so i'm wondering if i keep on working in 48000 just for this project will it make any difference when i make the final mixdown? or should i do everything again in 44000?
thanks for the help!
  http://www.soundcloud.com/getafixmusic |
|
|
|
dtd
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
490
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 18:09
|
i'd suggest you finish it in 48kHz to avoid any motivation-disturbing headaches  then mixdown to your target sample rate directly, or mixdown to 48kHz and dither down to 44.1kHz. |
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 18:17
|
|
hey dtd thanks for the quick reply..so theoretically it shouldn't be a problem right? i wonder why its recommended to work in 44.1 then? is it coz that's the format supported by audio CD's?
http://www.soundcloud.com/getafixmusic |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 18:22
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 18:31
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 18:47
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-20 18:22, orange-atropa wrote:
its better to work in 48000khz and when mixdown convert to 44100khz with dithering!
|
|
Dithering have nothing to do with sample rate but applies to bit depth.
As a producer you shouldn't really do any dithering at all and just record down a 24bit file and leave the dithering for the mastering stage when going from 24 to 16.
I work in 44.1 since any advantages of doing processing and recording with 48k is cancelled out by the degradation that comes from having to resample it before going to CD.
It takes more space and more CPU power for nothing really.
88.2k is another story and can be worthwhile if you have space and processing power to make it worth the small improvement in quality you would get when going to CD.
And if you send a mixdown as 48k, make sure to label it properly as such or it can happen that your track gets pitched down a few BPM when pressed on CD.
It shouldn't, but we all can make mistakes and using 48k wav for mixdown is non-standard practice.
For the project you already started in 48k I would finish it in 48k and leave it to the mastering engineer to resample.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 18:55
|
|
Thanks for making it all clear spindrift..i guess i will go through the hassle of redoing the song in 44.1 as i don't want the complications u mentioned..
http://www.soundcloud.com/getafixmusic |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Feb 20, 2006 19:49
|
yes indeed spindrift you are right!
but i mention dithering to be applied when u export the file for your use and for you to burn it on cd when its 32/24/48000
if its going to be send for master the wise thing is to leave it as it is 24bit or 32bit and export with no dithering applied!
orange
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
dtd
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
490
Posted : Feb 21, 2006 10:00
|
|
jep spindrift, you're right about the dithering! |
|
|
|
Meta
Meta/Boomslang
Started Topics :
24
Posts :
1045
Posted : Feb 21, 2006 11:21
|
Listen to Spindrift.
I remember someone sent off a track @ 48k to a record label, and the mastering engineer didn't notice and mastered it @ 44.1... and the track went through mastering without being resampled... which resulted in it coming out and going to press at roughly 110 BPM instead of 145 as a result of the fudged sampling. Whoops!
http://soundcloud.com/aeon604
http://www.metaekstasis.com/
http://the1134.com/ |
|
|
|
FluoSamsara (Oxygen)
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
1164
Posted : Feb 21, 2006 16:34
|
|
There are a lot of arguments between studios wether the mix should be done at 48Khz or at 44.1Khz and later converted...this is one of those aspects where there isn´t actually any "rule" of the best way to go...but the majority goes with Spindrift opinion...the quality lost in converting 48 to 44.1 brings worst effects than working in 44.1Khz in the first place...and I go with that also ...always 44.1, unless I´m working on something for DVD... |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Feb 21, 2006 20:01
|
I have always been arguing that it is best to stick to 44.1Khz if that is the target sample rate. These days it seems that sample rate conversion algorythms have gotten so good that it isn't so much of an issue any more. For S-Cube it shouldn't be an issue to convert to 44.1Khz when the project is finished.
If this gets sent out for mastering, keep it at 48Khz and let the mastering house do the conversion. If it doesn't and/or you want to burn it to CD I would advise you use Voxengo R8brain for the conversion. It is free and beats nearly all commercial sample rate converters. (Except the very expensive ones).
http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brain/
UnderTow
|
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Feb 21, 2006 20:56
|
|
texmex
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
189
Posted : Feb 21, 2006 22:01
|
If you're using only vst you can work on 44,1khz/48khz and then easily export in 96khz (good quality for synths) and do mastering and finally convert to 44,1khz/48khz.
I have no experience of record labels/mastering houses, so I don't know if they will accept 96khz. But you can use for example soundforge to squeeze it to 44,1khz. It has high-quality converters (as most audio apps have nowadays). |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Feb 22, 2006 21:07
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-21 20:56, S-Cube wrote:
Thanks for the link undertow..Do you think this converter is better than the one's in soundforge & wavelab?
|
|
Definitely better than the one in SoundForge. It is maybe slightly better than the default one in Wavelab 6. (Slightly less noise) And little a bit less good than the Crystal Resampler in WL 6.
The R8brain PRO converter (not free) is arguably better than both Wavelab and SoundForge. But you have to listen and decide for yourself. At this level the differences are quite small and become a question of personal taste.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
