24bit/48kHz vs. 16bit/44.1Khz

[Steno]

Hello everybody!

Last night I experienced one of the strangest things in my (not too long) life of producer...
I am recording the 2nd album of my band and doing some test CD while mixing, just to hear what I'm doing and tryng different mastering conditions, for fun and experiment...

In this occasions I usally mixdown my work (Pro Tools session at 48kHz/24bit) downsampled at CD quality, and then do the master with Sound Forge... all goes well, and I can do my CDs full of mastered1/mastered2/unmastered1/unmastered2/... versions of the songs... (needless to say, going crazy trying to catch the little unhearable differences between them ).

Last night (around midnight!) I told myself :"Lets do it all at 48kHz/24bit, just for fun!".
After bouncing to disk the tracks I switch to Sound Forge and here comes the drama: everything sounded INCREDIBLY muddy and with no highs!!!!!

It just seemed that someone put an high pass filter on the whole mix!!!

It's weird! If you think about the differences between the two qualities of course working at 48kHz should give some MORE definition on highs (also if we can discuss a lot about audibility of that and the real need of working at 48kHz or even 96 kHz when in the end it all will be 44.1...)

Anyone has an idea of what could have happened?
Mastering with a better definition and then downsample to CD quality should be better, shouldn't it?
I'm going crazy tryng to figure out why...
Bye!
Stefano

 

[Andy Sneap]

I always record at 44.1 khz 24bit and just dither to 16 bit at the final stage. I'm still to hear sample rate conversion that I think sounds as good as just sticking to 44.1khz. We have some bats that live out here at the farm that may appreciate the extra khz, but they don't pay council tax so fuck em. What with labels cutting budgets these days I may reflect that in khz , what do you think- 22khz for smaller budgets??

If its sounding really muddy I don't think it's sample rate problems, sounds like you have some incompatability issues going on here....you're not trying to burn the disc at 48/24 or anything insane like that are you????

 

[ThomasT]

It just seemed that someone put an high pass filter on the whole mix!!!

You mean a low pass filter (high cut)...

working at 48kHz should give some MORE definition on highs

No, not really. I'm deaf over 17.5kHz and I assume the majority of people, too.

But practical it depends on you equipment. My whole equipment sounds hearable (but not dramatically) better on 48kHz. I thinks it a kind of jitter issue that are less hearable or better corrected at 48kHz. I have some conversions betwee SPDIF and ADAT in the chain. (selfbuild converter).
Even the lexicon-FX seems to sound better in 48kHz (always synced extrnally).

But: 48kHz means you need 9% more CPU/DSP power. And that can be important on large projects. And as Andi says, samplerate conversion has sometimes hearable artefacts. So I stay with 44.1kHz.

I your case I think it must be something different. The artefacts are not that big. Digital technic are far from beeing perfect. And very often its not the 44.1kHz vs. 48kHz itself but some side effects.

 

[Ermz]

You mean a low pass filter (high cut)...

Yeah, I was wondering about that.

I seem to have a soundcard that forces me to record in 16-bit/48khz mode (Audigy 2 ZS.. yeah, yeah I know, not exactly the ideal recording card). So I'm forced to stick with that, until I downsample to 44kkhz for the mastered copy of whatever it is I'm working on.

 

[Steno]

....of course low pass...!

I didn't burn any CD, just the 16/44.1 wav uncopressed file sounded better than the other (same mixing conditions...) ... bah... anyway, the world goes on, perhaps my digi002 was tired and decided to play me some sick joke.. I'll do the final mix 16/44.1!

To Andy...
Low budget ----> low frequency?
And what about us poor bands with poor contracts?!?! We'll be damned to telephone quality albums?!?

 

[Steno]

....of course low pass...!

I didn't burn any CD, just the 16/44.1 wav uncopressed file sounded better than the other (same mixing conditions...) ... bah... anyway, the world goes on, perhaps my digi002 was tired and decided to play me some sick joke.. I'll do the final mix 16/44.1!

To Andy...
Low budget ----> low frequency?
And what about us poor bands with poor contracts?!?! We'll be forever damned to telephone quality albums?!?

 

[Hopkins-WitchfinderGeneral]

We have some bats that live out here at the farm that may appreciate the extra khz