Tweak Head

[jauk]

Hello,

When bouncing a final mix to disc, does anyone use the Tweak Head Setting? Just curious, really. If you do, is the actual bounced 2 track stereo file larger than one that is converted with the "Good" setting? It says that it will take longer after the file is bounced to convert it to Tweak Head, but the times I have tried it, it took no longer. Any comments on this?

Thanks for your time. I do appreciate it.

[filosofem]

jauk

Chris Cavell: Okay, bounce to disk, 44.1kHz, still 24 bit, and use the tweak head conversion algorithm. The pro tools tweak head algo is one of the finest on the market...to get something better will absolutely require spending a considerable amount of cash...which if you had at your disposal, you wouldn't be mastering this stuff yourself in the first place. (Which by the way, if you happen to have $600 laying around, or could have saved up that much by working during the time you spent self-mastering all 12 to 14 of the tracks on your album, you could have a had a very reputable pro mastering house take care of it for you in just a couple of days turnaround time!!!...phew..sorry, I digress...back to the topic...but email me off the board if you want the name of that facility)

Taken from Final Mix and Master... thread.







filosofem

[jauk]

Thanks for the reply. When I tried this again last night, it converted just about as fast as it does for the "Good" setting, which makes me wonder if it converted at Tweak Head at all. Is the file size larger after a Tweak Head convertion as opposed to say, the "Good" setting?

Thanks

[IntelDoc]

I always use Tweeked Head. Sounds better and not much slower to worry about.

Doc

[jauk]

Much thanks for your reply. I guess I was expecting it to take much longer. When I was looking through the manual is stated to only use it when you were not limited in time. So, I was expecting it to take much longer.

I appreciate your time

[Chris Cavell]

Tweak Head is merely an anti-aliasing filter choice you can use when converting sample rates. It's the "best" filter offered in pro tools, and happens to be a bit more complex than the others. On a modern fast cpu, you probably won't notice much difference in the time it takes to process...and there shouldn't be any difference in the resulting file size.

[jauk]

Thanks, Chris, for that. This is all making more sense now. I did some internet searches on anti-aliasing filters. I wasn't even really sure what to search before I saw your reply.

Thanks. I very much appreciate it.