Login / Register
 
48k vs 96k converter question
New Reply
Subscribe
michael cleary
Thread Starter
#1
20th March 2011
Old 20th March 2011
  #1
Gear addict
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 379

Thread Starter
michael cleary is offline
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?
#2
20th March 2011
Old 20th March 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
wado1942's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,694

wado1942 is offline
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.
__________________
Stephen Baldassarre
www.gcmstudio.com
soulstudios
#3
21st March 2011
Old 21st March 2011
  #3
soulstudios
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

I agree with Wado. The benefits between 48k and 96k are small but noticable.
#4
21st March 2011
Old 21st March 2011
  #4
Gear nut
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 105

Avidmusician is offline
...Would 88.2kHz downsample to 44.1kHz better than 96kHz?
#5
21st March 2011
Old 21st March 2011
  #5
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 219

MainTime is offline
88.2 ---> 44.1 better.
#6
21st March 2011
Old 21st March 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,281

-tc- is offline

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.
#7
21st March 2011
Old 21st March 2011
  #7
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 423

editronmaximon is offline
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.
Cellotron
Verified Member
#8
21st March 2011
Old 21st March 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 3,885

Verified Member
Cellotron is offline
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
Adam Dempsey
Verified Member
#9
22nd March 2011
Old 22nd March 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne - Australia's music capital.
Posts: 2,065
My Recordings/Credits

Verified Member
Adam Dempsey is offline
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?
__________________
Adam
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
facebook | twitter
Is adding presence the same as subtracting absence?
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
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

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.