Sample Rate for professionals

[Sardi]

Originally Posted by Basstian

How should that be possible. Thriller was recorded analog and the digital master for CD was done in 44,1 kHz and 16 bit. Where did you get hi-res files? Are these really done from the original Master-Tape? Or is this some conversion from the SACD original, which was remastered by Bernie Grundman for SACD. To what did you compare it to then? The Master differs from the Original, which has little to do with the resolution. How can you make sure that the files really only differ in resolution and not in gear used or tweaks made.

VERY good point.

If it is indeed a different master, then it would obviously sound different and can't be used in the comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leftalive]

Guys like us - on forums like this - love to care about these things, and almost literally no one else does. I've never had anyone at a label ask me why I didn't cut at 96k, and I sure as hell haven't ever had anyone on the consumer end complain about bit/sample rates.

In fact, I have had more than one instance where I had to remind a label that I hadn't sent them the high(er) res files yet for mastering (usually because I hadn't been paid), and it never even occurred to the person I was talking to that the mp3 mixes I sent for evaluation weren't good enough for final release. Now, I'd like to think that someone in the chain there would have eventually caught that, but... I don't know man - there were a couple of times where we got right down to the wire.

If you can afford the $2000 guitar over the $500 guitar, and you think it makes that much of a difference, then buy it.

And if you have the time, and the bandwidth, and the storage space, and you think it makes a difference, then cut at 192k, or whatever.

But virtually no one else is going to care.

It's like the old joke - 'You can always tell when someone records their record to analog tape, because they tell you.'

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by leftalive

In fact, I have had more than one instance where I had to remind a label that I hadn't sent them the high(er) res files yet for mastering (usually because I hadn't been paid), and it never even occurred to the person I was talking to that the mp3 mixes I sent for evaluation weren't good enough for final release. Now, I'd like to think that someone in the chain there would have eventually caught that, but... I don't know man - there were a couple of times where we got right down to the wire.

If you can afford the $2000 guitar over the $500 guitar, and you think it makes that much of a difference, then buy it.

And if you have the time, and the bandwidth, and the storage space, and you think it makes a difference, then cut at 192k, or whatever.

But virtually no one else is going to care.

It's like the old joke - 'You can always tell when someone records their record to analog tape, because they tell you.'

MP3 masters haha, they might have never known

Great post

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by leftalive

Guys like us - on forums like this - love to care about these things, and almost literally no one else does. I've never had anyone at a label ask me why I didn't cut at 96k, and I sure as hell haven't ever had anyone on the consumer end complain about bit/sample rates.

In fact, I have had more than one instance where I had to remind a label that I hadn't sent them the high(er) res files yet for mastering (usually because I hadn't been paid), and it never even occurred to the person I was talking to that the mp3 mixes I sent for evaluation weren't good enough for final release. Now, I'd like to think that someone in the chain there would have eventually caught that, but... I don't know man - there were a couple of times where we got right down to the wire.

I’ve had labels call mastering and ask them where the hi res files are for iTunes and for archiving my records.
Now yes, that COULD be upsampled at mastering but that’s also kind of silly.

I never had labels ask what tape speed or what noise reduction or what tape or what flux level either in the hundreds of analogue records I’ve done for major labels.
That doesnt mean it would have made sense for me to have done them on cassette, because “no one asked”.

We are the professionals. We are supposed to care.

[Bob Olhsson]

It's worth mentioning that the purpose of making a recording is to advance the artist's career. A bunch of reviewers, broadcasters and promoters will be making decisions about the artist's future based on what they hear.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

based on what they hear.

Yea, and if this was a numbers game, I'm sure top artists would be using 384kHz/64bit now, because they have the money to ask someone to build such a system...

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

It's worth mentioning that the purpose of making a recording is to advance the artist's career. A bunch of reviewers, broadcasters and promoters will be making decisions about the artist's future based on what they hear.

This whole debate is like the debate about which HD TV looks better. When you are comparing two side by side in the store, of course you're going to say the more expensive one looks slightly noticeably better. But when you get the cheaper one home in your living room by itself, guess what? It's still going to look great and you'll have extra money in your pocket and when your friends that don't care about specs and pixel density come over for the super bowl, they ain't gonna care about the more expensive tv at the store that they never seen looking better than the one you bought. What matters is does the one in your living room that everyone is watching look great.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by DJ Hellfire

This whole debate is like the debate about which HD TV looks better. When you are comparing two side by side in the store, of course you're going to say the more expensive one looks slightly noticeably better. But when you get the cheaper one home in your living room by itself, guess what? It's still going to look great and you'll have extra money in your pocket and when your friends that don't care about specs and pixel density come over for the super bowl, they ain't gonna care about the more expensive tv at the store that they never seen looking better than the one you bought. What matters is does the one in your living room that everyone is watching look great.

Not really. The two situations are not actually analogous, While higher pixels on a tv cost more . How much more expensive are higher samples ? Well funny you should ask . Interestingly enough according to Dan Lavry it is harder and arguably costlier to design a converter to accurately reproduce at 44.k than 48-88- or 96

Also when I went shopping for a new TV OLED TV in point of fact the more expensive Sony did not look better than the LG. So I bought the LG and when I took it home, not only did my son in law immediately noticed it looked better than my old HD Plasma I had given him, and did so on all upscaled sources as well , to the point that on the 1962 black and white movie "The Longest Day" while the foreground was amazingly sharper and clearer with noticeably greater 3 dimensional depth,,,,,the only drawback was that the painted backdrops were also so accurately reproduced, that it became all the more painfully obvious they were 2 dimensional with no depth.
And depending on the amount of beer consumed trust me the good ol' super bowl boys, will appreciate the OLED also . Possibly to the point of the issue how to get rid of them .

Honestly I am genuinely surprised and thrilled at how good of a real world, at home, picture I am getting as opposed to the closed circuit Ultra High def feed at Best Buy

I do however think we have flogged this poor pony to death

[melloj]

I used to get hung up on all this stuff now I just don't care. To me though, I'd record music at 24 bit 44.1. I work in sound design these days, we record on the highest we possibly can but for different reasons. I suppose musically I'd record an orchestra in a big hall at super high settings. A band in a room 24 bit 44.1

[justDoug]

48 KHz/24 bit.

Next question...!

Sent from my ASUS ZenFone 2E using Tapatalk