Hi , I need an oppinion: Sometimes in large projects it´s very difficoult to work in 88.200 Hz so I have to mix in 44.100 What do tou think is beter? recording ,making some processes and mix in 44.100 or record in 88.200 make some processes ... then convert to 44.100 and mix?
hmmm ... I think you'll get a whole lot of opinions ... and all over the place with what others use ...
so here's mine
I would not rule out that bigger, faster could be better ... however, and this is NOT a justification but more of a running resultant.
I started working with digital sometime in the early '80s. Granted, it wasn't until several years into it that consumers were getting more involved. In those daze, when we got to 44.1, 16 BIT ... that was our format. Whether the early SONY or Mitsubishi [even the Fairlight] multi-tracks ... that was it. We later got digital 2 trks, like the R-Dat format [Panasonic 3500, 3700]. They were all 16bit, with NO room to play with ... it was the same spec as the release [CompactDisk].
Throughout that whole time we still had to release records [or CD's]. We were also expected that this releases were to, hopefully be hits and there were those
Speed ahead and we have 96k+ and 24bit+. These are wonderful things as technology advances.
I've had the pleasure to work full sessions at the standard CD 44.1, and at the higher rates. I've also done combinations of both.
There in is where I feel the conflict In the studio we are allowed a unique perspective that most [or only a select few get to hear] and that is a direct, A:B comparison. The majority only get to hear the 'final' version [whatever it is].
I certainly have my personal preference ... but ya know, it's also one of the benefits of being an audio engineer ... we have the original sources To that, I much prefer listening in a 'controlled' room. I'm kinda spoiled that way Most people have never had even that opportunity [sadly]. Maybe the closest is going to hear a symphony orchestra in a great listening hall. [or any style of music ... but in a room DESIGNED to listen to it].
Be that as it may ... I also do NOT subscribe to aiming for the lowest rung, at least NOT by intent Reality may dictate that not every project is allowed that [multitude of reasons ... none of which welcomed ... but again ... the demands of the real world can force us to only do our best.
Anyway ... we don't always get unlimited budgets, time, and stellar performances of spectacular arrangements of exquisitely crafted 'hit' songs ... and I don't find evidence that 'sample rate' had anything to do with determining the 'quality' of a recorded piece.
with that ... I never gave an answer to the original question, did I
I don't see a 'text book', 'one size fits all' answer.
Thank you for your opinions I know what you mean RJHollins... I have arrived also to my own conclusions some time ago , but it never hurts to confirm our thoughts . Thank you again Martinez and RJHollins to share your time and your experience.
Read your post last week but it requires a kind of complicated answer that I couldn't really manage to put in words, there's a lot of depends to it. Came across this today and thought it covers the subject quite usefully, as well as being a interesting read along the way. Hope it helps add a bit more to make the suitable decisions for the task at hand. And the other thing to bring into this discussion but only briefly touched upon in the article is "The McGurk Effect"
I wish I could drum half as well with two hands as one of Terry Bozzio's feet
I have my own opinions about this topic but why not try it for yourself? Mix down a simplistic arrangement with a good amount of non-linear processes. Do it first in 44.1 and then 88.2, mixdown and bounce out and compare.
For further personal enlightenment compare a dithered down version of the 88.2 as well as an un-dithered, un-converted version.
Thanks iank and TranscendingMusic for your opnions... TranscendingMusic , as you can imagine sometimes in different music "styles" the results of the same technics may be sound different , and we "can´t" test everything we need. The reason I start this subject is .. if possible to get the maximum possible of oppinions and experiences. Theres a lot of experts in this "place" and I think we' all will be grateful of the transmitted knowledge.
I have found that when you record distorted signals higher sample rates push the aliasing above the human hearing range. You can see such aliasing also when you sample in NAT, even with the best of converters...
To me the point of higher sample rates is that your converter puts the digital anti-alisaing filter at higher frequency. Therefore, whatever damage it is that it does, it happens at higher frequencies.
Someone recently asked what is alisaing and if it matters. I work pretty much all the time at 96k with programs sampled at 96k and didn't think of the case when the SRC is done inside Nebula. I will not be surprised if the SRC in Nebula isn't so great [I may be wrong though!]. So this could be a factor.
TranscendingMusic wrote:For further personal enlightenment compare a dithered down version of the 88.2 as well as an un-dithered, un-converted version.
I guess a typo? Why would you dither? SRC doesn't need dither.
I mention dither as to reference a typical, final format such as Red Book. So 16-bit, 44.1. You remove other variables and hear the sound as you would in a real-world situation. For self-knowledge, that's why I say also test the "rawer" form without dither as well.