Login

Sample rate to use

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Sample rate to use

Postby Ronnieg » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:53 pm

Hi
I did try and search for this but no joy..........

Ok. I,ve just started using Nebulaman. I record into cubase at 44khz ,Now as its off line and a little easier on the CPU should I load he 96 or 192 versions of 3rd party program's and do the rendering. Will I hear any difference sonically as I then import the track/ wav back into cubase at 44.

Thanks
Ronnie
Ronnieg
User Level II
User Level II
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Sample rate to use

Postby enriquesilveti » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:07 am

Recording at 48. Mixing & Mastering at 96. CD days are over, Digi delivery 24/96 FLAC is the recommended format standard for Europe (no DRM).

PS: You new a very good computer...
Enrique Silveti.
Acustica Audio customer and technical support.

MBP 11.5 (i7-4870 | 16 GB | 512 SDD)
SP4 (i5-6300 | 8 GB | 256 SDD)
RME UFX | PS Lyra2 | SD USBPre2
VM U15 | VM W10 | VM OSX 10.12
N4/NAT4 | SPX3 | RX5 | LN2C | Smaart8 | R5 | PT12 | PX10
User avatar
enriquesilveti
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Lodi | Madrid | Buenos Aires

Re: Sample rate to use

Postby ngarjuna » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:17 pm

Ronnieg wrote:Hi
I did try and search for this but no joy..........

Ok. I,ve just started using Nebulaman. I record into cubase at 44khz ,Now as its off line and a little easier on the CPU should I load he 96 or 192 versions of 3rd party program's and do the rendering. Will I hear any difference sonically as I then import the track/ wav back into cubase at 44.

Thanks
Ronnie

You should just load the 96 and 192 versions, render them up, and do a listening test. It's pretty simple to decide for yourself.

The only difference I've found (it's definitely audible but quite subtle nonetheless) is the very highest frequencies can sometimes be a little different (I'm guessing differences in the anti-alias filters of the capture ADC); it's not exactly a better or worse thing, though (unless you leave the top end of the frequency spectrum unprocessed, me I use a lot of EQ'ing and some LPF when I mix not to mention tape and tube programs which also work away on that high end) and you're talking about frequencies that probably at least ~30% of the population cannot even hear.

But I don't think you'll find any advantages to using a higher SR program; on a purely theoretical level your best bet is usually to minimize SRC, an inherently destructive process (yes the amount of damage it does is usually very, very small; but no damage is better than little damage).

Digi delivery 24/96 FLAC might be on the rise in some sectors (recommended by whom I wonder?) but every one of my clients wants 24/41 or 24/48 just like they always have. And in video/post I have still never seen or even heard of anyone working at 96K and I have to import/export tracks with studios on 4 continents. MFiT, which might end up being something like the next 'red book', wants 24-bit masters (at anything 44.1 or higher). And as processors get more powerful (and more able to deal with cutting your resources in half) so too do converters get better and better at lower [standardized] sample rates. I'm still not seeing this migration to 96K that everyone talks about. Some individuals are taking the leap but I'm not seeing a new standard in the making unless things change a lot over the next few years.
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami

Re: Sample rate to use

Postby Ronnieg » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:53 pm

Thanks for the replies.

This:
"You should just load the 96 and 192 versions, render them up, and do a listening test. It's pretty simple to decide for yourself."

I just thought if i use a 192KHZ patch in nebulaman and then drop it back into a 44khz project I'm actually creating SRC statges i needn't. Without the sonic quality still being maintained.

Many thanks

Ronnie
Ronnieg
User Level II
User Level II
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Sample rate to use

Postby ngarjuna » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:12 pm

Ronnieg wrote:Thanks for the replies.

This:
"You should just load the 96 and 192 versions, render them up, and do a listening test. It's pretty simple to decide for yourself."

I just thought if i use a 192KHZ patch in nebulaman and then drop it back into a 44khz project I'm actually creating SRC statges i needn't. Without the sonic quality still being maintained.

Many thanks

Ronnie

You are creating SRC stages when you use a library in a SR that's not the session's sample rate; tbh I'm not really sure how it works inside Nebula (does the program itself and its samples get subjected to SRC or does the incoming audio get the conversion, processing, then reconversion?). I've never let a library not being the same sample rate as my session stop me from using it; but if the same SR is available then I'll usually choose it (although I do it as a best practice, I can't say that listening tests revealed enough of an impetus to act).

The only time I can think of where it would be beneficial to upsample at that point in your workflow is if, like Enrique is suggesting, you're going to deliver higher SR mixes than your recordings. If you're going to have to resample at some point anyway, then you might as well do it while you're running your batch processes and run Nebula at 96K (it seems to me like the majority of libraries are available in 96K although most developers nowadays seem to offer multiple sample rates).

But you know how sample rate discussions go; ask 2 people, get 3 answers.
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami


Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests