Mixing to higher sample rate

Tom C · 21st October 2005

If a song is recorded at 24/48 (Alesis HD24XR), is it redundant to mix it down at 24/96 (Masterlink)?

Legacy · 22nd October 2005

Hi Tom,

We need more info to completely answer your question. Particularly, are you mixing on an analog board or through a summing box? If so then yes, it may be worthwhile to recapture the mix back into 1s and 0s at 96kHz. If it is all in the box you would have to use some sort of software upsampler before the masterlink in which case you would be just storing 48,000 samples in a 96,000 sample box.

In mastering the engineer may want to upsample before processing but that is up to them. Some believe that digital EQ's etc sound better working at higher rates. Either way just deliver them 24.48 source files and let them decide.

Hope this helps.

Tom C · 22nd October 2005

Thanks,

Yes, it was mixed through an analog board going to the Masterlink. So it sounds like your advice is that the higher sampling rate may still be an advantage, in this case?

Legacy · 22nd October 2005

Yep, I think so. It is a subtle advantage but any good mix is an accumulation of subtleties...Also I think the Masterlink's converters sound distinctly better at 2FS if you're using them. Once the audio is converted back into the analog world and mixed I think of it as back to square one - capture it at the highest quality you can.

Best,
Silas

Brad Blackwood · 22nd October 2005

Why not just try it both ways and listen?

djui5 · 22nd October 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Blackwood

Why not just try it both ways and listen?

Mike Lapchick · 22nd October 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legacy

any good mix is an accumulation of subtleties..

I read it once this way - "The quality of anything cannot exceed the sum of its details." How true it is - especially in this biz.

Tom C · 22nd October 2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legacy

Yep, I think so. It is a subtle advantage but any good mix is an accumulation of subtleties...Also I think the Masterlink's converters sound distinctly better at 2FS if you're using them. Once the audio is converted back into the analog world and mixed I think of it as back to square one - capture it at the highest quality you can.

Best,
Silas

You know, this makes sense, and I don't know why I never thought of it before. Once you're back in the analog realm, you're back to square one, as you say.

Not to dismiss listening to the results, but again, it makes sense. Thank you for your insights.

jameshancockb3 · 12th December 2005

I've had a Masterlink for 3 years now. The best sounding Red Book CDs that I can make are at 88.2/96k at 16 bit, recorded analog. I think that the dither could be improved.

There are products for blank CD-Rs like Optrix, Static Guns, and Micro Smooth that will help you make better sounding CDs

I contacted Alesis and asked them if they were going to upgrade their units to 1x burn speed vs their current 4x. This was their response:

"While this was true a few years ago, CD writers have made leaps and
bounds.

Most produce less jitter at 4xs speed than at 1xs.
A large group of mastering engineers and critical listeners agree that
CDs
cut in different ways tend to sound different. The CD differs from
other
storage media in many ways, but the critical point is that the timing
of the
output clock and the speed of the spinning disc are related. The output
of
the CD player is a clocked interface, and the data are clocked off the
CD
disc in a ‘linear’ fashion, one block of data after another. A buffer
is
used, which theoretically cleans up the timing to make it regular
again,
and, for the most part, it does.
Actually cdrmedia.com and ixbt-hardware.com acquired some real
expensive CD
media testing equipment and did some of the most exhaustive tests
including
the quintessential BLER tests in the industry. Their conclusion was
surprising and breaks the norm of recording at lower speeds. According
to
their tests, today’s high recording speed burners tend to produce lower
errors when the recording is done at near their maximum rated speed or
at
least only a few notches down.

Warmest regards,

Robert C. Ray
Supervisor - Alesis/Akai/Numark/Ion "

You should also cut mixes at 88.2/96k 24 bit. This is a better format for mastering studios.

Let your ears be the judge.

21st October 2005	#1
Tom C Gear Head Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 60 Thread Starter	Mixing to higher sample rate If a song is recorded at 24/48 (Alesis HD24XR), is it redundant to mix it down at 24/96 (Masterlink)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Recording at Higher Sample Rates	Rick Shepherd	Mastering forum	6	26th November 2008 10:48 PM
High Sample Rate Stems for Mixing?	largeunit	So much gear, so little time!	6	24th May 2005 10:49 PM
Track Count at Higher Sample Rates	rr1073	High end	3	20th March 2005 10:20 PM
Higher sample rates -- better for time stretching later on?	CZ101	So much gear, so little time!	0	17th February 2005 07:41 PM
Poll: 44.1 or higher sample rates for recording?	music	Q&A with Charles Dye	2	22nd May 2004 08:08 PM

22nd October 2005	#2
Legacy Lives for gear Joined: Jan 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 635	Hi Tom, We need more info to completely answer your question. Particularly, are you mixing on an analog board or through a summing box? If so then yes, it may be worthwhile to recapture the mix back into 1s and 0s at 96kHz. If it is all in the box you would have to use some sort of software upsampler before the masterlink in which case you would be just storing 48,000 samples in a 96,000 sample box. In mastering the engineer may want to upsample before processing but that is up to them. Some believe that digital EQ's etc sound better working at higher rates. Either way just deliver them 24.48 source files and let them decide. Hope this helps.

22nd October 2005	#5
Brad Blackwood Craneslut Joined: Jun 2002 Location: The home of Rock-n-Roll, Memphis, TN Posts: 1,902	Why not just try it both ways and listen?

12th December 2005	#9
jameshancockb3 Gear interested Joined: Mar 2005 Posts: 13	I've had a Masterlink for 3 years now. The best sounding Red Book CDs that I can make are at 88.2/96k at 16 bit, recorded analog. I think that the dither could be improved. There are products for blank CD-Rs like Optrix, Static Guns, and Micro Smooth that will help you make better sounding CDs I contacted Alesis and asked them if they were going to upgrade their units to 1x burn speed vs their current 4x. This was their response: "While this was true a few years ago, CD writers have made leaps and bounds. Most produce less jitter at 4xs speed than at 1xs. A large group of mastering engineers and critical listeners agree that CDs cut in different ways tend to sound different. The CD differs from other storage media in many ways, but the critical point is that the timing of the output clock and the speed of the spinning disc are related. The output of the CD player is a clocked interface, and the data are clocked off the CD disc in a ‘linear’ fashion, one block of data after another. A buffer is used, which theoretically cleans up the timing to make it regular again, and, for the most part, it does. Actually cdrmedia.com and ixbt-hardware.com acquired some real expensive CD media testing equipment and did some of the most exhaustive tests including the quintessential BLER tests in the industry. Their conclusion was surprising and breaks the norm of recording at lower speeds. According to their tests, today’s high recording speed burners tend to produce lower errors when the recording is done at near their maximum rated speed or at least only a few notches down. Warmest regards, Robert C. Ray Supervisor - Alesis/Akai/Numark/Ion " You should also cut mixes at 88.2/96k 24 bit. This is a better format for mastering studios. Let your ears be the judge.