Going back to 24bit/ 88.2khz.
Old 30th June 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Going back to 24bit/ 88.2khz.

I was just going through some old pro tools sessions since ,I just upgraded to pro tools 11 and the differences I am hearing in quality between my old 24/88 sessions and my current 24/ 44 sessions are night and day. The 24/88 sessions are so full and clean. They almost come out of the speakers, very upfront! I don't remember the reasoning behind switching to 24/44 but it clearly compromises the sound. I will say that I had a trident s20 preamp back then that I would run my individual tracks and vocals through before hitting my sound card but I'm not sure if that is the reason for the difference in quality.
Old 30th June 2013
  #2
Banned
 

S20 plus hardware vs Maefhine?
More info on the two setups is neeeed.
Old 30th June 2013
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Dayl's Avatar
 

I've tried 24/88 24/96 and it didn't really do much for me in terms of sound quality over 24/4, no real advantages... may look at going back to it for placebo effect with my new rig once I can source enough HD space.
Old 30th June 2013
  #4
Gear interested
 

I have noticed that if the final intention is to release to cd, then sessions in 88.2 had better separation and sense of space after the dithering process. I would imagine that plugins working at increased resolution may lend themselves to a higher level of precision.
Old 30th June 2013
  #5
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrides View Post
S20 plus hardware vs Maefhine?
More info on the two setups is neeeed.
I will admit that I was still on my Asr-x at that point but that doesn't explain the vocals sounding better. I may have still had my 4047 at that timer also, as opposed to my 4040 which I have now. whatever the case it's night and day.
Old 30th June 2013
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Dayl's Avatar
 

someone ask Serban Ghenea
Old 30th June 2013
  #7
Banned
 

88.2 to 96 is not much and hard to hear, but 44.1 to 96 is the difference between watching 480p and 1080P HD Tv IMO. If you cant hear that, you have deficiencies in you rig or monitoring. Anyone with the argument "it all ends up at 44.1 16 bit", needs to look into the effects of number crunching errors and associated distortions, while mixing ITB. It happens with every single tweak you make, thats why they made dithering noise to mask those errors.
Quote
1
Old 30th June 2013
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Dayl's Avatar
 

I, for example have no deficiencies in my rig or at least that would rule out hearing any major change between 24/44 to 24/96... I hear a difference, but it is not game changer, deal breaker, night and day etc etc.
Old 30th June 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayl View Post
I, for example have no deficiencies in my rig or at least that would rule out hearing any major change between 24/44 to 24/96... I hear a difference, but it is not game changer, deal breaker, night and day etc etc.
I'm thinking to myself, why did I ever switch? I switched to 16/44 because my computer wasn't powerful enough to mix at 24/88.
Old 30th June 2013
  #10
Gear interested
 

Personally, I record everything at 44.1. 88.2/96khz sounds different, but not better IMO. I don't know many pros that record above 44.1. The low mids and sub is way better at 44.1. Try a test for yourself and really listen. "High def" is too hollow and thin. Strange, but the truth.
Old 30th June 2013
  #11
Gear maniac
 
Miiika's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonycamp View Post
88.2 to 96 is not much and hard to hear, but 44.1 to 96 is the difference between watching 480p and 1080P HD Tv IMO. If you cant hear that, you have deficiencies in you rig or monitoring. Anyone with the argument "it all ends up at 44.1 16 bit", needs to look into the effects of number crunching errors and associated distortions, while mixing ITB. It happens with every single tweak you make, thats why they made dithering noise to mask those errors.
No, you're wrong. That's certainly NOT "why they made dithering noise".
You're confusing things and spread false information!

Higher sample rate processing can help to reduce ALIASING.

Dithering has nothing to do with aliasing. Dithering removes quantizatoin distortion when reducing bit depth.
Old 30th June 2013
  #12
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Bill View Post
Personally, I record everything at 44.1. 88.2/96khz sounds different, but not better IMO. I don't know many pros that record above 44.1. The low mids and sub is way better at 44.1. Try a test for yourself and really listen. "High def" is too hollow and thin. Strange, but the truth.
NO, check deficiencies. If you are trowing stuff out, go 44.1 24 bit(never 16 bit), if you want a high res mix that f#@king pounds, go as hi res as possible at 32 bit floating(huge headroom), and mix out da box. There is no way in hell that 44.1/16 will sound near as big or smooth.

I believe itunes is now offering hi res files now for 46 cents more? If not yet, they will soon as storage limitations are things of the past(check my 3 terabyte hard drive), only one way to go, HD and lots of marketing! I welcome it

Apple Accepting High-Resolution Music for iTunes, Says Sound Engineer [Report] | Cult of Mac
Old 30th June 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
 
davidwilson's Avatar
 

Unknown Bill I hear you.

I work at 24/96 but have been given a project to mix @48K. To be honest it is the best sounding album Ive get to work on.
But also in a very well equipped studio with great talent.
Quote
1
Old 30th June 2013
  #14
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Bill View Post
Personally, I record everything at 44.1. 88.2/96khz sounds different, but not better IMO. I don't know many pros that record above 44.1. The low mids and sub is way better at 44.1. Try a test for yourself and really listen. "High def" is too hollow and thin. Strange, but the truth.
I've never tried it but I don't know. FWIW i'm seeing a big difference between 24/88 and 24/44 using an m-audio audiophile card so I imagine a higher quality card would even be better. The 24/88 is much smoother. I would say that the asr-x and trident s20 variables are coming into play but I tracked an asr-x beat at 24/44 recently and it just doesn't sound as round as 24/88.
Old 30th June 2013
  #15
I am monitoring through MM27s and NS10s fed by a Cranesong Avocet and using Cranesong and Apogee converters and the difference has definitely not been "night and day" in my experience.
Quote
1
Old 30th June 2013
  #16
Lives for gear
 
davidwilson's Avatar
 

Well you know better is not always better.

I hear this hollowness also, maybe also refer to it as a bloated sound. But 44K is issues also can be thin and grainy.

A lot of hi end plugins I now realize fall into this trap. Hard to describe but almost as if they take up too much space.

Slate Digital and McDsp 6030 are great they seem to have it right though.

Go back to the old Waves Renassionce plugs and Metric Halo Channel strip very different characters but have something magical about them the new ones dont.
Old 30th June 2013
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Dayl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyondat View Post
I'm thinking to myself, why did I ever switch? I switched to 16/44 because my computer wasn't powerful enough to mix at 24/88.
Yeah, pretty much my reason for flagging 96 and sticking with 44.1 as things got big and hard to handle quite quickly... plus, tbh... I was only really using 96 because of people saying it was the way... same with 88.2.... it was not based on my own research or knowledge... even what I heard lol.

... and I try not to be so naive these days... can't be helped at times though.

I believe you on the vocals though.. they are meant to open up a bit... but thats only hearsay so I could be wrong.
Old 30th June 2013
  #18
Banned
 

if 96k sounds hollow to you, it's because what ever acoustic problems or phase anomalies your studio is suffering from, is now clearly audible and in high resolution I'm not joking
Quote
1
Old 30th June 2013
  #19
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyondat View Post
I will admit that I was still on my Asr-x at that point but that doesn't explain the vocals sounding better. I may have still had my 4047 at that timer also, as opposed to my 4040 which I have now. whatever the case it's night and day.
So basically a very different setup. Different mic, different pre, different sampler, different method of tracking (running tracks through pre vs itb). With all these changes, the difference is 88.2? Do a track in 88.2 with your current rig and I bet you the difference woll still appear to be drastic. It sounds like you downgraded your whole setup possibly.

Your description sounds like what OTB people claim to hear over ITB. Im not pushing that agenda or going down that path.... but its just an observation. I secretly hope you are right and 88.2 is a magic fairy powder solution. My experience mames me ask why you didnt assign the difference to one of the many other variables between the two setups.

If you obseve OTB vs ITB claims even vox would be impacted because the mix itself comes together differently. Also 4047 is a more intimate sounding mic than the 4040. Which can loosely be considered closer sounding or more 3D. Tracking hardware via preamp? No need to go info that one. Most professionals dont find 88.2 to bring enough to the table givenkthe cost. If it was night and day for them, this wouldnt be the case. Night and day is usually worth it.

I go 88.2 at times because I can. Not because I claim it to be drastically better. Dont even know if i have tested for a difference honestly. Cant remember. Been so long. Then again, maybe your particular converters operate better at 88.2. I have heard of this type of claim based on the I implemented converter design. However. ...

This is the 2nd thread I have seen where your old setup seemed to beat new one. Just sayin...
Old 30th June 2013
  #20
Lives for gear
It's nice to see that many (most, almost all?) people still succumb to many of the digital audio myths about sample rates....
Old 30th June 2013
  #21
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post
It's nice to see that many (most, almost all?) people still succumb to many of the digital audio myths about sample rates....
Shots fired! Bullets flew randomly into the air. We dont know if the shooter sucks at aiming or if he never had a target to begin with. Police have obtained video footage of a suspect claiming to be able to "sing like a girl".

All units in the area have been asked to respond....


Last edited by jrides; 30th June 2013 at 02:18 PM.. Reason: My original post was civilized and made sense. That is no fun.
Quote
2
Old 30th June 2013
  #22
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Unfortunately Maschine can only export @44 so would have to track it into pro tools which would require all that IO/Rewire type nonsense that I try to avoid.
Old 30th June 2013
  #23
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidwilson View Post
Tony finding words to describe audio is hard.
Being a dick is easy.
clearly the truth bothers you to the point of throwing 3rd grader D bombs
Old 30th June 2013
  #24
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyondat View Post
Unfortunately Maschine can only export @44 so would have to track it into pro tools which would require all that IO/Rewire type nonsense that I try to avoid.
Word. Well it sounds lime you cant move back to 88.2 even if you wanted to.
Old 30th June 2013
  #25
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonycamp View Post
clearly the truth bothers you to the point of throwing 3rd grader D bombs
I dunno Tony facepalming is considered pretty juvenile as well. I was gonna ask if you were fresh out of high school until I made it to the end of your sentence. I think you guys should have internet beef and end it with a freestyle battle. Beyondat can make the battle track in 88.2 for maximum carnage.
Old 30th June 2013
  #26
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Bill View Post
Personally, I record everything at 44.1. 88.2/96khz sounds different, but not better IMO. I don't know many pros that record above 44.1. The low mids and sub is way better at 44.1. Try a test for yourself and really listen. "High def" is too hollow and thin. Strange, but the truth.
I agree, especially regarding the low mid, low end.

The other things mentioned are harder to explain.

I grew to hate dealing with exaggerated top end artifacts

44.1khz is how I'm rolling after years of working with 96khz

I've listened, I hear the differences
I like using 44.1khz, its better for me and my ears
Old 30th June 2013
  #27
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrides View Post
I dunno Tony facepalming is considered pretty juvenile as well. I was gonna ask if you were fresh out of high school until I made it to the end of your sentence. I think you guys should have internet beef and end it with a freestyle battle. Beyondat can make the battle track in 88.2 for maximum carnage.
I like having fun and being a smart ass, that aint gonna change, but I'm not calling anyone a dick jrides?

Look, bottom line, if your gear and room are up to the job, higher res sounds better, it's a fact. When someone says something sounds "hollow", 99 times out of 100 they're having phase issues.

If your having phase issues, by all means stay at 44.1, it will mask those problems better than higher resolutions.

Don't shoot the messenger, flatworlders used to attack the roundworlders ya know I'm out, believe what you want
Old 30th June 2013
  #28
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonycamp View Post
NO, check deficiencies. If you are trowing stuff out, go 44.1 24 bit(never 16 bit), if you want a high res mix that f#@king pounds, go as hi res as possible at 32 bit floating(huge headroom), and mix out da box. There is no way in hell that 44.1/16 will sound near as big or smooth.

I believe itunes is now offering hi res files now for 46 cents more? If not yet, they will soon as storage limitations are things of the past(check my 3 terabyte hard drive), only one way to go, HD and lots of marketing! I welcome it

Apple Accepting High-Resolution Music for iTunes, Says Sound Engineer [Report] | Cult of Mac
Who said anything about 16bit? Def 24-bit. 32 float is great if you have headroom issues. But that's usually due to engineers tracking way too loud. No one uses analog VU's anymore so they are tracking all the way to 0dbfs. There is a ton of dynamic range in a 24-bit file. If you have proper gain staging, there should be more than enough headroom in a 24 bit file.
Old 30th June 2013
  #29
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonycamp View Post
I like having fun and being a smart ass, that aint gonna change, but I'm not calling anyone a dick jrides?

Look, bottom line, if your gear and room are up to the job, higher res sounds better, it's a fact. When someone says something sounds "hollow", 99 times out of 100 they're having phase issues.

If your having phase issues, by all means stay at 44.1, it will mask those problems better than higher resolutions.

Don't shoot the messenger, flatworlders used to attack the roundworlders ya know I'm out, believe what you want
So basically you are afraid to freestyle battle david in 88.2. I can understand. Too much resolution. Someone could me maimed. Carry on.
Old 30th June 2013
  #30
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonycamp View Post
I like having fun and being a smart ass, that aint gonna change, but I'm not calling anyone a dick jrides?

Look, bottom line, if your gear and room are up to the job, higher res sounds better, it's a fact. When someone says something sounds "hollow", 99 times out of 100 they're having phase issues.

If your having phase issues, by all means stay at 44.1, it will mask those problems better than higher resolutions.

Don't shoot the messenger, flatworlders used to attack the roundworlders ya know I'm out, believe what you want
Well... At least Doc Mixwell gets it.

Listen, there no phase issues over here. Trust me, I know what I'm doing over here I'm just trying to enlighten you. Hi def is always misunderstood. I suppose everyone wants to defend their own opinion. Fair enough. But, for example, you can't think of hi def audio the same as video. It's totally different. I wish I could explain it clearly to you, but you just have to research for yourself. It's easier to just listen to a shoot without bias. 44.1 is a solid format. 88.2/96khz is full of errors which shifts the sound. It's slightly different so some people believe its better... More or less a placebo effect.
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
Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.