48k vs 96k converter question
Old 20th March 2011
  #1
Gear addict
 

Thread Starter
48k vs 96k converter question

I had posted this in another forum but one question related to mastering. If I'm mixing to a masterlink, what would a mastering house rather see, a mix done through an apogee Rosetta at 48k or a mix directly into the masterlink at 96k? thanks, mc
original thread link is below.
Apogee at 48k or Masterlink at 96?
Old 20th March 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 

I'd personally rather have the 96K mix. Apogee's rather overrated IMO. Though those converters are probably slightly better, I think the benefits of 96K outweigh slightly better converters running at 48K. Plus, 96K downsamples to 44.1 better than 48K. I know somebody will disagree but all my tests using multiple SRCs support my opinion.
Old 21st March 2011
  #3
soulstudios
Guest
 

I agree with Wado. The benefits between 48k and 96k are small but noticable.
Old 21st March 2011
  #4
Gear nut
 

...Would 88.2kHz downsample to 44.1kHz better than 96kHz?
Old 21st March 2011
  #5
Gear maniac
 

88.2 ---> 44.1 better.
Old 21st March 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 


Quote:
Originally Posted by MainTime View Post
88.2 ---> 44.1 better.
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexey Lukin View Post
To keep things simple: integer-ratio conversions are simpler to implement, so they work better than fractional conversions with poorly-designed (or simple) converters. With good converters, there's no difference in quality between fractional and integer SRC.
Old 21st March 2011
  #7
Banned
 

96kHz or better, I would think, if you want to be a little bit "future-proof".

DVD is 48/96/192, right?

I don't know of any formats planned for 88.2kHz.

YMMV.
Old 21st March 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by wado1942 View Post
I'd personally rather have the 96K mix. Apogee's rather overrated IMO. Though those converters are probably slightly better, I think the benefits of 96K outweigh slightly better converters running at 48K.
I'll take the opposite argument. I actually think Apogee converters often get a little bit under rated on this forum. They're certainly not the best out there but they can do the job nicely. I have an 8 channel Apogee/Soundscape 896I/O (discontinued model from around 2002) that while not my usual go to definitely still sounds nice and fine to this day.

I also think the differences created by having to go through different analog front ends are usually much more marked than the differences inherent in two different sample rates.

Of course the absolute best thing is just for the original poster to run two versions and do a comparison to see what to their ear is first closer in sound to the original source, and second what might be subjectively preferable in terms of end result for the specific track.

Quote:
Plus, 96K downsamples to 44.1 better than 48K. I know somebody will disagree but all my tests using multiple SRCs support my opinion.
I'll say that many other ears will definitely vary from this view - especially in light of non-subjective tests on src's that don't show marked differences between the two conversions for most algorithms. But again - folks just need to check for themselves what happens with the tools of their choice.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 22nd March 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidmusician View Post
...Would 88.2kHz downsample to 44.1kHz better than 96kHz?
Who's tracking @88.2 and 96 KHz sample rates?
Short answer: in the end - sonically - it comes to design of the conversion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron
I also think the differences created by having to go through different analog front ends are usually much more marked than the differences inherent in two different sample rates.
thumbsup

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael cleary
what would a mastering house rather see, a mix done through an apogee Rosetta at 48k or a mix directly into the masterlink at 96k? thanks, mc
In the absence of an objective test for minimal change against a source reference (if that is your goal) what's left is essentially: which sounds best, to you?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
arnielarsen / Q & A with producer / engineer Ken Scott
1
JChance / Music Computers
2
nexxoussone / So much gear, so little time!
3
insomnio / So much gear, so little time!
7

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.