ITB <> OTB & 44.1<>96Khz

[SCDBM]

Ok, so this topic might have been discussed a thousand times, I have read a lot, still I am considering switching, having some specific questions and I would like your opinion:

I work with Cubase where i can set my projects to 44.1/32 96/24 or 192
the internal mixing is always 32bit float.

My product always ends up as 44.1/16 material (or MP3 for online stores)

I understood that 88.2 (x2 44.1) is a better alternative than 96 (x2 48)when 44.1 is your aimed result?
Other say that you can even better record and master on 44.1 as the increased resolution does not outweight the conversion?

Do all plugins support 88.2 or 96?!? (I.E. Native Instruments?)
How would you mixdown your premaster? 44.1 or 96?

What is considered the best samplerate converter, ditherer for converting to 44.1?

I've now got my Lexicon MX connected via spdif (digital external FX) switching to 96 would mean that i need to replace with with a balanced connection.

Do outboard analogue loops (i.e. compressor, EQ) greatly gain from material with increased sample rates?

Is the increased resolution from 96khz (or 88.2) REALLY worth it?

[Bob Olhsson]

Every single bit of signal processing degrades the signal. What we do is trade subjective improvement off against objective degradation. A higher resolution source will always be less degraded in the end product. This is true in photography, video and audio.

It being worth doing is entirely a question of the specific implementations of your gear and software. The only way to know is by trying and comparing using the tools you have at hand.

[MAzevedo]

Originally Posted by Raphie

I understood that 88.2 (x2 44.1) is a better alternative than 96 (x2 48)when 44.1 is your aimed result?
Other say that you can even better record and master on 44.1 as the increased resolution does not outweight the conversion?

Modern SRC algorithms can do 96 > 44 just fine, and I think the benefits of higher resolution at the final summing at the mix bus outweigh the costs of high-quality SRC.

Do all plugins support 88.2 or 96?!? (I.E. Native Instruments?)
How would you mixdown your premaster? 44.1 or 96?

Can't say anything about NI, but you should always mixdown at the native sample rate of your session. ie - pick a sample rate when you start tracking and stay at that rate up until mastering.

What is considered the best samplerate converter, ditherer for converting to 44.1?

I'm a really, really big fan of iZotope's SRC. You can get it cheap as part of Wave Editor (if you are a Mac user) or expensive as part of their RX software.

I've now got my Lexicon MX connected via spdif (digital external FX) switching to 96 would mean that i need to replace with with a balanced connection.

You can run 96k over spdif.

Do outboard analogue loops (i.e. compressor, EQ) greatly gain from material with increased sample rates?

Is the increased resolution from 96khz (or 88.2) REALLY worth it?

Yes and Yes.

The biggest issue with 96k is doubling your CPU, drive space, and drive throughput requirements. Depending on your system, you might not be able to get the track and plugin counts you need for you work at 96k, but will have horsepower to spare at 44k. But, if your system can perform at 96k I think it is definitely the way to go.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Raphie

I understood that 88.2 (x2 44.1) is a better alternative than 96 (x2 48)when 44.1 is your aimed result?

No, actually not - though it initially would seem so. You don't simply halve the sample rate (i.e. you don't just discard every second sample) when going from 88.2 to 44.1 kHz.

Originally Posted by Raphie

Do outboard analogue loops (i.e. compressor, EQ) greatly gain from material with increased sample rates?

No, that would be a huge exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Raphie

Is the increased resolution from 96khz (or 88.2) REALLY worth it?

Improvements or degradations are accumulative and source dependent, i.e. the difference will be bigger if you're recording, mixing and mastering a live jazz trio at 96 kHz than just one level of high sample rate processing in an electronic production ITB.

With a good A/D converter (especially the filter design is important in this respect) there's no real advantage in my opinion. Also some plug-ins actually sound worse at very high sample rates, so always do a little testing first. Not to mention you'll have to SRC back to 44.1 kHz at some point. You will end up using more disk space and putting much more strain on your computer for sure though.

If you're expecting some kind of miracle transformation by going above 44.1 kHz you will be very disappointed. Either that or you'll be a severe victim of the placebo effect. :-) Most likely you will no be able to tell the two final 16 bit 44.1 kHz files apart at all, and certainly not the mp3's.

But as always: YMMV, so do a test and compare the two final mastered 16 bit 44.1 kHz files (one complete 96 kHz project SRC'ed to 44.1 kHz during the final stage of mastering, and the same project all done at 44.1 kHz) in a blind test, and make up your own mind.

[bass man]

My 2 cents ...

I do mostly jazz and acoustic music . Record all the time 24/48 and some smaller projects like duos 24/96 . Mix ITB ,lately mixdown to 2 track tape machine and going back from tape to the PC 24/48 and 24/96 and then compare the files . Sometimes i can hear/feel the difference between 48 vs 96 on the soft parts and some freq. of the instrument and sometimes not. Yesterday i heard difference on the bass solo on couple of notes and on some notes of the vocals . But the diff. is really just a tiny feeling about the certain notes and freq - thats all .
There is no wow thing about it for sure but i still record and mixdown to at 24/96 when i get a chance for it or enough power in my system.
BTW to be honest i dont think i could hear the difference every time in blind testing the 48 vs 96 files ....

nice day