- Jan 1, 2005
- 1,634
- 2
- 38
Question for Andy...
- Thread starter metalkingdom
- Start date
DIOBOLIC5150
I think I broke something
- Jul 18, 2004
- 456
- 0
- 16
- 44
egan.
daylightdies.com
Please correct me if I'm wrong but andy still uses a mix(plus?) system and records at 44.1....at least that's what he was using the last time we had the samplerate arguement on this forum.
Nitronium Blood
UM BOARDS' JESTER
egan.
daylightdies.com
This is the original thread. I reread some of my posts and I simplified things pretty extremely to not write a book on the forum but I still believe that the just of it is true. Another key factor on this is the stability of the clock source. I read an interview with the guy from Crane Song a couple months back where he said that he still hasn't found a clock source that he likes for 192KHz.
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115868
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115868
Hopkins-WitchfinderGeneral
we are children of god
I record at 48 roughly and then sample down to 44.1 for the finished product.
Really, theres not point at all in going overboard with the sample rate.
Really, theres not point at all in going overboard with the sample rate.
- Jan 1, 2005
- 1,634
- 2
- 38
That thread is kinda old. No offense, but I'm trying to hear what Andy has to say. I just find it hard to believe that he would still be running a mixplus. Not that he doesn't make it sound f'in killer regardless...
And for the record - recording at higher sample rates ABSOLUTELY makes a huge difference!!!
And for the record - recording at higher sample rates ABSOLUTELY makes a huge difference!!!
My God. I have to butt in. I have done serious listening tests comparing mixes at all sample rates and testing the sample rate theory talked about here and in that original post.
Fist off I can say that the differences in sound quality between 44.1 and 48 k are VERY hearable. 48 k is quite a bit wider with more low end and high end extention. Anyone can hear it. The difference between 48k and 88.2 or 86k and also quite hearable but not as dramatic. I say that if you have the disk space and processing power, use the double sampling rate. If not, use 48k.
Some people have been saying that they dont like the sound of sample rate conversion. Well, this varies from box to box or program to program. If youre going to use a cheap program SRC like something in Pro Tools or Sound Forge, sure youre going to loose a lot. I use a Z-Sys Z-3 outboard box which is only like $800 US dollars and its beautiful. There is another step up in quality if you want to go Weiss, DB or Prism. But this box is VERY adaquate.
Ok, now I can see if you are recording a stereo program and you dont have a good SRC, you might want to go down at 44.1 But when you have a 32 track mix and every single track was recorded at 96k, the quality boost is cumulative. Its like if you are mixing or recording most of your album with Neve, and Focusrite preamps but youre hi hat, and toms were recorded on a Mackie, you wont really hear a big difference in the final product. But if you were to record the ENTIRE album with Mackie preamps, you would loose a lot in the end.
Also consider that a large percentage of the time, your mix will be mastered in the analog domain. So in this case you would be FAR better off sending a high res 96k stereo file into the D/A chain than a lower res 44.1 mix.
I do this all the time in my mastering studio and using 96k to feed the analog chain makes quite a big difference.
Or lets consider a full digital mix. By tracking and mixing at 96k, you get 32 tracks of higher quality audio fed into the mix bus and mixed down at 96k for a very small loss, then then fed to your plug ins for mastering at high res for better sound, then finally SRC'd with a high quality program or box. Or if you really think SRC'ing sucks, do a d/a a/d conversion to get your audio back to 44.1. All better than tracking and mixing at 44.1
With the quality of SRC boxes and programs that are out there now, the low cost of HD space, and the fact that the quality we are talking about is cumulative in a mix, there is absolutely no reason to record at anything under 48k.
Its not hard to test this yourself and when you realize what you have been missing, you'll never go back.
PS. There is a very cheap and decent SRC called Resample that is available that is tons better than what is built into PT, Sound Forge, Nuendo, ETC. Not as good as a Sadie or Sonic SRC, or one of the outboard boxes, but good. Get it for $30 and do youre mixes a big favor!
Colin
Fist off I can say that the differences in sound quality between 44.1 and 48 k are VERY hearable. 48 k is quite a bit wider with more low end and high end extention. Anyone can hear it. The difference between 48k and 88.2 or 86k and also quite hearable but not as dramatic. I say that if you have the disk space and processing power, use the double sampling rate. If not, use 48k.
Some people have been saying that they dont like the sound of sample rate conversion. Well, this varies from box to box or program to program. If youre going to use a cheap program SRC like something in Pro Tools or Sound Forge, sure youre going to loose a lot. I use a Z-Sys Z-3 outboard box which is only like $800 US dollars and its beautiful. There is another step up in quality if you want to go Weiss, DB or Prism. But this box is VERY adaquate.
Ok, now I can see if you are recording a stereo program and you dont have a good SRC, you might want to go down at 44.1 But when you have a 32 track mix and every single track was recorded at 96k, the quality boost is cumulative. Its like if you are mixing or recording most of your album with Neve, and Focusrite preamps but youre hi hat, and toms were recorded on a Mackie, you wont really hear a big difference in the final product. But if you were to record the ENTIRE album with Mackie preamps, you would loose a lot in the end.
Also consider that a large percentage of the time, your mix will be mastered in the analog domain. So in this case you would be FAR better off sending a high res 96k stereo file into the D/A chain than a lower res 44.1 mix.
I do this all the time in my mastering studio and using 96k to feed the analog chain makes quite a big difference.
Or lets consider a full digital mix. By tracking and mixing at 96k, you get 32 tracks of higher quality audio fed into the mix bus and mixed down at 96k for a very small loss, then then fed to your plug ins for mastering at high res for better sound, then finally SRC'd with a high quality program or box. Or if you really think SRC'ing sucks, do a d/a a/d conversion to get your audio back to 44.1. All better than tracking and mixing at 44.1
With the quality of SRC boxes and programs that are out there now, the low cost of HD space, and the fact that the quality we are talking about is cumulative in a mix, there is absolutely no reason to record at anything under 48k.
Its not hard to test this yourself and when you realize what you have been missing, you'll never go back.
PS. There is a very cheap and decent SRC called Resample that is available that is tons better than what is built into PT, Sound Forge, Nuendo, ETC. Not as good as a Sadie or Sonic SRC, or one of the outboard boxes, but good. Get it for $30 and do youre mixes a big favor!
Colin
Hey Vile_ator!:
Your views are well taken my friend. For myself though, when I listen to ,say... Arch Enemy's CD "Anthems Of Rebellion", which Andy recorded, mixed,mastered,etc., at 24/44.1.......fuckin' Christ does that sound good!
Trust me I'm not disclaiming your views. It's just that for myself, when I hear something such as that mentioned CD, I don't think that if I record at 48/96, there will be much of a difference. Even if I sent it out to be pro-mastered, I still doubt it. So I'm gonna stick to my guns and see if I can get up to the "Sneap Level" at 44.1.
Your views are well taken my friend. For myself though, when I listen to ,say... Arch Enemy's CD "Anthems Of Rebellion", which Andy recorded, mixed,mastered,etc., at 24/44.1.......fuckin' Christ does that sound good!
Trust me I'm not disclaiming your views. It's just that for myself, when I hear something such as that mentioned CD, I don't think that if I record at 48/96, there will be much of a difference. Even if I sent it out to be pro-mastered, I still doubt it. So I'm gonna stick to my guns and see if I can get up to the "Sneap Level" at 44.1.
- Jan 1, 2005
- 1,634
- 2
- 38
DUDE - I hate the SRC in PT and Nuendo!!! Did not realize that there were dedicated programs out there...
I'd also like to ask Andy if he "bounces to disk" through 1-2, or the internal busses? Maybe he uses a summing mixer? I hate what DAW's do to my mixes during bounce/export.
I'd also like to ask Andy if he "bounces to disk" through 1-2, or the internal busses? Maybe he uses a summing mixer? I hate what DAW's do to my mixes during bounce/export.
egan.
daylightdies.com
No Offence taken. Here is a much newer thread where he says the same thing.metalkingdom said:
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=173486&highlight=44.1
Colin, I agree that higher sample rates (obviously) sound better but SRC is the issue. Also, there is an issue of mixing hearing things one way, and then subjecting the 2-track mix to extreme brickwall filtering and format changes. You are hearing more if you mix at 96 but you aren't hearing what the mix will sound like (let alone DAW summing). To me you are leaving alot to chance there.
I agree that most mastering plants can do the rate conversion while going to analog. However, What I'm specifically refering to is SRC in the box which from what I've heard still sucks pretty badly. This is particulary aimed at the home mastering guys. Also, from what I can tell the budget boxes (Digi 002 caliber stuff and below) may have the capibilty to record at higher sampling rates, but if you don't use an external clock sync the budget boxes can't keep up. It makes more sense to run at a slower, more stable rate.
Also, I take issue with the idea that sample rate quality is "cumulative." Bitrate certainly is, but when you are using a brickwall filter you lose all additional info gained by using a highe sample rate.
Don't get me wrong I agree that higher bitrates sound better, I just don't agree that they necessarily translate better into 44.1 16bit.
egan.
daylightdies.com
Where are you seeing that? The equipment list says "mix+++".JV said:
http://www.andysneap.com/equipment.html
I like this additude. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is of bitrate/samplerate/preamps/etc. many killer records have been recorded on adat and mixed on budget consoles and it comes down to whether you can mix or not.JV said:
eagan. posted:
Where are you seeing that? The equipment list says "mix+++".
http://www.andysneap.com/equipment.html
Sorry about that. I screwed somethin' up with that link. Do a search (this forum)....It's still there. I just checked.
Where are you seeing that? The equipment list says "mix+++".
http://www.andysneap.com/equipment.html
Sorry about that. I screwed somethin' up with that link. Do a search (this forum)....It's still there. I just checked.
egan.
daylightdies.com
I think we'd have about 90% fewer posts if we could all just learn to use the search function.JV said:eagan. posted:
Sorry about that. I screwed somethin' up with that link. Do a search (this forum)....It's still there. I just checked.
Andy Sneap
Metal Guru
I use an HD3 now, but I still have the Mix +++. I also keep at 44.1, 24 bit, just for ease really as I cant be doing with SRC, and theres the issue of hard disc space, certain plug ins, and if we are using the B Rig for overdubs etc.
As far as the mix bus issue, I had concerns about it when running the mix system, I was sure I could hear a difference when mixing in the box, but again, it's so minimal, it really is, it became less of an issue and I like the convenience of being able to just recall things in a instance and not mess around patching things in.
I've never had a problem with bounce to disc.
As far as the mix bus issue, I had concerns about it when running the mix system, I was sure I could hear a difference when mixing in the box, but again, it's so minimal, it really is, it became less of an issue and I like the convenience of being able to just recall things in a instance and not mess around patching things in.
I've never had a problem with bounce to disc.
- Jan 1, 2005
- 1,634
- 2
- 38
I'm a "veteran" of the L.A. studio scene (multi-platinum status), and I can tell you that the VAST majority of engineers/producers here still record at 44.1k even on HD. I think that a lot of it has to do with the exact issues that you brought up - hard disk space, plugin compatibility, and the chance that a project may eventually end up on an older system like a 24mixplus (which only goes up to 48k). I recorded the last band that I worked with at 96k (first time at that samplerate), and it sounded incredible in the subrange and extreme highs. Actually got away with using only one 120gb firewire drive, too. I did lose some "go to" plugins, and I believe that one of your favorites, Waves C4, was one of them (maybe it was available as multi-mono?). I'd love to hear what you could do with 96k, seeing as your 44.1 mixes are sonically superb. When I first heard "The Gathering", I coulda sworn that you did it on 2 inch! The Stampin' Ground record rules, too.
Take it easy, and thanks for the reply.
Take it easy, and thanks for the reply.
Nitronium Blood
UM BOARDS' JESTER
So... "The Gathering" and "A New Darkness Upon Us"... ALL DONE IN 44.1??????
So I suppose this means that, all that 'record at 96 and downmix to 44.1' stuff I have learned is bullcrap. :mad1:
So I suppose this means that, all that 'record at 96 and downmix to 44.1' stuff I have learned is bullcrap. :mad1:
Andy Sneap
Metal Guru
- Jan 1, 2005
- 1,634
- 2
- 38
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLACKFACE ADATS?!!!!
Excuse me but, I think the world is about to end...
Excuse me but, I think the world is about to end...
Similar threads
