Quantcast
Standard Format from Top Mastering Engineer - Page 3 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Standard Format from Top Mastering Engineer
Old 3rd July 2013 | Show parent
  #61
Audio X
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Ransom ➡️
Apart from the Lavry info, which shows us a great use for EQ, should one not have compensated automatically...

How old is that aliasing, oversampling and sampling info?
The Lavry paper is dated 2012
Old 3rd July 2013 | Show parent
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Grant Ransom's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio X ➡️
The Lavry paper is dated 2012
As I said, "apart from the Lavry info"...
Old 3rd July 2013 | Show parent
  #63
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Ransom ➡️
How old is that aliasing, oversampling and sampling info?
The comments I quoted in my sig were posted last year by [email protected] He's a brilliant developer responsible for some of the best sounding software & analog modeling that's ever been done. Then you've got Lavry who obviously knows converters stating flat out that the ideal rate for converters would be 60khz or the next closest rate available above that. Both advocate 88.2khz.

The limitations of 44.1khz aren't going to change and become outdated from one year to the next. Either you rely on latency inducing oversampling, which causes two steps of realtime sample rate conversion and antialias filters at every instance, or you just run the audio at a higher rate til the end with much less latency and avoid a lot of SRC.

If you use even one oversampling plugin you're incurring more sample rate conversions than just working at 88 or 96 and doing the final downsample. This makes it funny when guys would use plugins that oversample but at the same time say "I'd rather stick to 44.1khz and avoid the sample rate conversion"!
Old 3rd July 2013 | Show parent
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms ➡️
Regardless, anyone who cares about sample rates should certainly take the few seconds it takes beforehand to bring it up and clarify.
Absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nms ➡️
With nice converters the only real benefit of mastering with higher sample rates is if you're mastering digitally or the mix was recorded at a higher SR.
Or if you want to more accurately capture the high frequency content of an analogue master from a properly set up tape machine (I've used 1/2" 30ips machines flat to 30kHz response), for delivery formats other than Compact Disc.
Old 3rd July 2013 | Show parent
  #65
Gear Head
 
Broyhillio's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey ➡️
(I've used 1/2" 30ips machines flat to 30kHz response)
One of the reasons I always thought 1/2" sounded boring
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broyhillio ➡️
One of the reasons I always thought 1/2" sounded boring
Boring how? That's fine if that's your opinion but of course try telling it to a client who wants to preserve all the HF detail of their analogue source mixes (as I'd want to do, also).
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Grant Ransom's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey ➡️
Boring how? That's fine if that's your opinion but of course try telling it to a client who wants to preserve all the HF detail of their analogue source mixes (as I'd want to do, also).
Flat to 20kHz, great.
But "preserving" the HF above the 20kHz maximum limit of human hearing?
That most samplers, synths, preamps and mics are not "flat" at or can reproduce themselves?

I see the arguments regarding 60kHz as having theoretical benefits for plugins.
Assuming we can reliably hear ovesampling. But delivery formats are another ball game.
Again, a 20kHz waveform and all below can be accurately reproduced at 44.1kHz...
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by SASMastering ➡️
I cannot agree with this either.

My first ever mastering job came when I was in full time employment as head engineer with a production company. Then I went freelance and moved towards mastering, there is always going to be some overlap but within 3 years my sole income was derived from mastering and still is I am very happy about that. If you want to excel at it you have to specialize. Day in day out creates focus and results.

I am with Twerk here, I only master and plan to stay that way, if you are good you are in demand and have no time to mix. I turn away a mix job every couple of weeks, it's tempting from time to time but people appreciate clarity about specialized work forms.

The way I see it is you are one or the other.

Not to mention the proper analogue equipment is usually specialist as well although of course you can blur that line as you wish to a degree.
Well hats off to you.

I'd say it's totally dependent on the cost of living. If I charged what you did I'd be a homeless guy living from a bin on the Sydney streets. It's all relative. You can't really compare 'being a full time ME' to other people that work multiple jobs unless you know their living costs.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #69
Gear Head
 
Broyhillio's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey ➡️
Boring how? That's fine if that's your opinion but of course try telling it to a client who wants to preserve all the HF detail of their analogue source mixes (as I'd want to do, also).
Just having some fun, don't want to ruffle anyones feathers. You could take it further and say what 1/2" sounds boring, as if they all sound the same.

That said I have been guilty many many times of preferring the sound of a poorly maintained 1/4" Otari MTRII-C to a perfectly maintained 1/2" ATR 102.

I apologize for the wise crack thats taken things off subject, I've got to get better at this gear-slutz thing.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant Ransom ➡️
Flat to 20kHz, great.
But "preserving" the HF above the 20kHz maximum limit of human hearing?
That most samplers, synths, preamps and mics are not "flat" at or can reproduce themselves?

I see the arguments regarding 60kHz as having theoretical benefits for plugins.
Assuming we can reliably hear ovesampling. But delivery formats are another ball game.
Again, a 20kHz waveform and all below can be accurately reproduced at 44.1kHz...
Yes. It's the old ultrasonics argument, but suffice to say if there is musical signal >20kHz in the source and it can be retained in the transfer (and the affect of not doing so is more audible) then there is little reason not to. Particularly in the interests of serving the client's wishes. I'm not necessarily advocating 192k either. Most projects I receive come in at 48k or 88.2k. As always: do no harm and minimize the losses.
Strange that I seem the odd one out here (so far) but really there is little reason, if any, to commit to 44.1k sample rate other than for the compact disc format itself.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #71
Deleted User #43636
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey ➡️
Yes. It's the old ultrasonics argument, but suffice to say if there is musical signal >20kHz in the source and it can be retained in the transfer (and the affect of not doing so is more audible) then there is little reason not to. Particularly in the interests of serving the client's wishes. I'm not necessarily advocating 192k either. Most projects I receive come in at 48k or 88.2k. As always: do no harm and minimize the losses.
Strange that I seem the odd one out here (so far) but really there is little reason, if any, to commit to 44.1k sample rate other than for the compact disc format itself.
You may be right at a theorical level, but in the real world, some converters perform better at 44.1 (although there are probably some others which work better at a higher frequency).
Harmonics in the spectrum of most instruments dont go higher than 16 kHz. We dont know what is the signal above 20k, and if it is 'musical' at all. I doubt that excluding this HF information (which I think is mostly noise) has any audible effect.
By the way, weaknesses of high sampling frequencies are abundantly documented.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
SASMastering's Avatar
 
Verified Member
2 Reviews written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F ➡️
Well hats off to you.

I'd say it's totally dependent on the cost of living. If I charged what you did I'd be a homeless guy living from a bin on the Sydney streets. It's all relative. You can't really compare 'being a full time ME' to other people that work multiple jobs unless you know their living costs.
Thanks, I always wanted to specialize, that was my mindset, so far so good. I cannot see what it has to do with pricing, it's about how much work you get doing what you do.

Who knows in life one must be flexible if and when needs must. Never say never but for now I am glad I can live from mastering alone.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddigger1 ➡️
I doubt that excluding this HF information (which I think is mostly noise) has any audible effect.
Try it. In my experience (and having worked on reissues for native high sample rate vs the initial CD release) it certainly does.

See also: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
Also a previous thread: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...harmonics.html where non-linearities in the audible bandwidth due to filtering near the Nyquist frequency also garners a mention.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #74
Deleted User #43636
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey ➡️
Try it.
In my experience (and having worked on reissues for native high sample rate vs the initial CD release) it certainly does.
See also: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
Also a previous thread: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...harmonics.html
I tried.
I remember this thread : https://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...harmonics.html . I found it more convincing about avoiding high sampling rates than the contrary. And I still do.
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #75
Lives for gear
 
jackbraglia's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F ➡️
If I charged what you did I'd be a homeless guy living from a bin on the Sydney streets.
wow sydney is that expensive huh? how does it compare to new york? it costs $20 an hour just to breathe here
Old 4th July 2013 | Show parent
  #76
Audio X
Guest
Quote:
What's The Standard Format from Top Mastering Engineers?
For final delivery.. 16/44.1 Wav

The answer for me would be 24/96 or 24/88.2 if the question was, when transferring from tape what sample rate and bit depth is used for the digital capture?
Old 4th July 2013
  #77
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddigger1 ➡️
I tried.
I remember this thread : https://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...harmonics.html . I found it more convincing about avoiding high sampling rates than the contrary. And I still do.
What do you find convincing in that thread that supports avoiding SR above 44.1? You don't find it a safe bet to side with the recommendation of some of the industry's top software developers and converter designers?
Old 4th July 2013
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbraglia ➡️
wow sydney is that expensive huh? how does it compare to new york? it costs $20 an hour just to breathe here
Just behind Japan currently!

http://mobile.news.com.au/money/cost...-1226570220558
Old 5th July 2013 | Show parent
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Robo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey ➡️
Strange that I seem the odd one out here (so far) but really there is little reason, if any, to commit to 44.1k sample rate other than for the compact disc format itself.
You're not the odd one out my friend. I've been doing and saying this for years. It seems obvious to me. There is almost always high frequency information above 22.05khz on vinyl records (not just noise), instruments of all kinds produce harmonics going way up to 30khz and higher (obviously at a very low amplitude but that's not the argument). In particularly snares produce huge harmonic transients, and most mics I've used from Sony C48s to reference electret condensors, unless they are severely rolled off, capture these frequencies. Perhaps people don't like to 'look' at their music but all you have to do is get used to looking at your audio in something like iZotope RX and you can really see whats happening. It's an eye opener and proves that 44.1khz really can chop off a lot of info in a very unnatural way (which I can't believe anyone would be ok with), whether you can hear it or not.

In another thread a while ago someone was certain there was nothing important above 20khz on a vinyl record, especially one that had been played a few times. He challenged me to prove there was anything important up there. I needledropped a track from a very well played original issue of John Lennon Imagine and showed the audio and screenshots from RX clearly showing info right up to 30khz (my stylus and cartridge were certified up to 25khz). He didn't reply after that.

Cheers
Old 7th July 2013 | Show parent
  #80
Lives for gear
 
jackbraglia's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F ➡️
wow, so you've got us beat by a long shot!
and I guess I won't be visiting zurich anytime soon. haha
Old 8th July 2013
  #81
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
There are many discussions about the quality benefit of higher sample rates, or the lack there of.
Suffice it to say that it is debatable
Also notable is the S/N ratio (equivalent to bit depth) of analog tape. You could capture tape at 64 bit resolution, but its noise floor is too high to make a difference.
I don't remember exactly, but I believe most analog tape has a noise floor equivalent to 14 bits or so
Old 8th July 2013 | Show parent
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Grant Ransom's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms ➡️
You don't find it a safe bet to side with the recommendation of some of the industry's top software developers and converter designers?
I don't.
"Safe bets" are an utter irrelevancy to me.

I will side with recommendations that I find concur with my experiences, and try to determine the things that definitely help me make the best music I can.
Old 8th July 2013 | Show parent
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Grant Ransom's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo ➡️
Perhaps people don't like to 'look' at their music but all you have to do is get used to looking at your audio in something like iZotope RX and you can really see whats happening. It's an eye opener and proves that 44.1khz really can chop off a lot of info in a very unnatural way (which I can't believe anyone would be ok with), whether you can hear it or not.
...
and showed the audio and screenshots from RX clearly showing info right up to 30khz (my stylus and cartridge were certified up to 25khz). He didn't reply after that.
"whether you can hear it or not."

Well, you have said that it's important to you regardless of the burning issue to many people - Audibility: Reliably being able to discern something that is affecting the music for the end listener.
Maybe he just accepted you have differing priorities.
Old 8th July 2013
  #84
Gear Addict
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
I capture at 44.1 unless I know before hand the client wants higher sample rate files.
From time to time I do tests to see if I want to change my workflow/practices. The last time I did a test, in my system with my workflow, I gained nothing and may have lost a little by capturing at 96 and SRCing later. In my experience any well designed top end converter sounds about the same at 44.1 or 96k. At some point in the near future when 44.1/16 is more like a minority of deliverables, I'm sure I'll revise my capture rate to reflect the dominate preferred delivery rate.

Dave
Old 8th July 2013 | Show parent
  #85
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsnare ➡️
I capture at 44.1 unless I know before hand the client wants higher sample rate files.
From time to time I do tests to see if I want to change my workflow/practices. The last time I did a test, in my system with my workflow, I gained nothing and may have lost a little by capturing at 96 and SRCing later. In my experience any well designed top end converter sounds about the same at 44.1 or 96k. At some point in the near future when 44.1/16 is more like a minority of deliverables, I'm sure I'll revise my capture rate to reflect the dominate preferred delivery rate.

Dave
Excellent report Dave.

Sounds like we're on a similar page, cheers bro, JT
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 217 views: 51412
Avatar for Leverson
Leverson 7th June 2014
replies: 189 views: 22589
Avatar for MarsBot
MarsBot 29th August 2017
replies: 952 views: 113395
Avatar for EvilDragon
EvilDragon 4 weeks ago
replies: 129 views: 19862
Avatar for bam_sound
bam_sound 2 weeks ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump