Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Additional Resources


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > Tips & Tricks

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #111  
Old 07-04-2017, 10:51 AM
hnoormohamed hnoormohamed is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

I am ready to master my CD album and all my final mixes are done on 48 KHZ which is default in PT, will there be a problem if I master at 48 KHZ or do I need to make it 44.1 KHZ?

Please let me know.

Thanks,

Hanif
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:59 AM
Drew Mazurek's Avatar
Drew Mazurek Drew Mazurek is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 10,794
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

You can master at 48K, but ultimately they need to be converted to 16/44.1 for cd replication.
__________________
www.drewmazurek.com

Mixing and Mastering click here to get started.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-04-2017, 12:03 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 32,628
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnoormohamed View Post
I am ready to master my CD album and all my final mixes are done on 48 KHZ which is default in PT, will there be a problem if I master at 48 KHZ or do I need to make it 44.1 KHZ?

Please let me know.

Thanks,

Hanif
Are you mastering, or is it going to a mastering house? If its going out, ask the mastering house what they prefer(when I send out for mastering, I bounce to 96K, even though my sessions are usually 48K). If you are "self-mastering(which I don't recommend) then I would bounce at the session sample rate and master in a new session. Why don't I recommend self-mastering? The 2 most important aspects of mastering are 1-a fresh set of ears(which the engineer can't have), and 2-superior monitoring(which none of us have if we didn't spend the price of a house on speakers, converters, room treatment, etc)

Why do I bounce to 96K? I want to give the ME a high-resolution product and many plugins work better at higher sample rates

Last 2 cents; if you are self-mastering, make the mix as perfect as you can without trying to master at the same time(just my preference, YMMV)
__________________
Asus x99, Intel i7 6800K, 32 gig DDR4, GeForce 750 Ti, HD/Native, HD IOx2, PT11HD, UAD Quad, preamps from Vintech, Five Fish Audio, Miktek, Focusrite, Chameleon Labs and Midas..............................
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works
www.capricornsoundworks.com

The better I drink...the more I mix.....

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-05-2017, 07:02 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 14,849
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

None of this matters; the ME can upsample with higher precision gear so the ONE AND ONLY thing you need to consider is HEADROOM of your mixes. Do not ever touch the top 6 dB no matter what bit depth your session is. If you can do that, just bounce whatever bit depth and sample rate your session is originally and ME can do the upsampling of needed.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-05-2017, 07:45 AM
Carl Kolchak Carl Kolchak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 2,119
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post

:<.... snip....

just bounce whatever bit depth and sample rate your session is originally

... >: snip

I'd disagree in some respects :

If the session is at 16bits, (or even in some cases, 24bits) the mixer summing and effects still happen in a 32bit floating point / 48bit fixed / 64bit floating point world.

Why introduce truncation, or dither, and loose so much?

@ OP :

I'd ask the M.E. If they want 24bit fixed point, or 32bit floating point files.

But yeah, as for sample rate, just leave it at whatever the session was tracked / mixed at - leave any sample rate conversion to the M.E. (Not that it's in any way a lossy process, so long as you aren't reducing the sample rate below what it was originally recorded at).

But if you are self mastering, a red book CD has to be 16bit / 44.1kHz, so you'll need to dither, and SRC.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-05-2017, 07:53 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 14,849
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Well if the software is able to export the 32-bit or 64-bit float mix that it does, it would be great. But usually if you have a "native" session (32/64bit) you can only bounce 16/24-bit fixed.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-05-2017, 08:01 AM
Bob Olhsson Bob Olhsson is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Songwriter Gulch, Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,098
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

I'd recommend the original sample rate 32 float. All modern mastering systems can handle that. The only exception is an old Sonic Solutions system from the '90s. which some people still use.

I agree with peaking to -6 or even -10. The reason is monitoring headroom while mixing. A lot of common converters get wonky at higher levels and you don't want to be compensating for that wonkiness in your mix.
__________________
Bob's room 615 562-4346
Georgetown Masters 615 254-3233
Interview
Artists are the gatekeepers of truth! - Paul Robeson
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:44 PM
jamesleonard jamesleonard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Hello,

Although 44.1kHz has become the de facto standard in all work stations, many producers today will operate their sequencers at a much higher sampling frequency of 88,200Hz or 96,000Hz. Although these sampling rates are far beyond the frequency response of human hearing, these sampling rates can reduce unwanted side effects such as *Frequency Cramping*

Frequency Cramping often occurs when a processor or effect is employed in an audio workstation at frequencies that are close to half the sampling rate. For example, if the current working project were set at 44.1kHz and the engineer were to boost a wide range of frequencies at 18kHz - the boost occurring on the the higher frequency side of 18kHz could extend well beyond 22kHz. This is more than the projects sampling rate and, in accordance with the Nyquist theorem, this would result in aliasing and Frequency Cramping, whereby the boost reduces sharply resulting in an uneven balance.

The attached thumbnails shows this effect in action - and sonically it appears harsh, reducing both presence and spatial resolution of the sound, whats more, this effect can be much more noticeable when using processors and effects that emulate analogue characteristics - such as: analogue modelled EQ's or distortion units - since these often introduce further harmonics either side of the frequency range being processed.

The diagram shows an unbalanced EQ curve (pink) compared to the original curve (grey)... The 2nd diagram illustrates this phenomenon.

*(Please substitute 10kHz for 18kHz - because I could not be bothered to plot a logarithmic graph for this example - but this diagram will suffice )

Also.. the boost at 1k serves no purpose in THIS example - so please disregard it - as it has no relevance to the diagram - so forget it's even there
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	68.4 KB
ID:	8967   Click image for larger version

Name:	2.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	67.3 KB
ID:	8968  

Last edited by jamesleonard; 08-14-2017 at 03:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
going higher than 10.6.3 viaspiaggia Post - Surround - Video 2 06-23-2011 04:41 AM
Can I get mp3.dll from 6.7 or higher? jonah day 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 0 03-13-2006 02:54 PM
Anyone running higher than OS 10.3.4 with 001? duderonomi 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 2 04-15-2005 07:59 PM
Anyone use JAM v.2.6 with OS 9.1 or higher?? peter parker 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 11-21-2002 10:38 AM
Higher Gain Tommyboy 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 1 03-22-2000 07:48 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com