methods to reduce sample rate of session in progress?

[chrisosaki]

Hi all,

I was give a session at 96000 Hz and now that I am well into it, my computer is having trouble keeping up. What would be my options to reduce down to 44100 Hz, while preserving all my work?

Many thanks for any help and suggestions.

[Top Jimmy]

File menu > "Save Copy In..."

Choose the sample rate you want and select all items you want to copy.

[albee1952]

Haha.....but seriously, I would go to 48k

[chrisosaki]

Great! I'll give that method a shot.

Ok, I guess I can afford 4800

Thanks all

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by JuanPC

44.1KHz?

Yet more nonsense from JPC.

[Pete Gates]

Originally Posted by albee1952

Haha.....but seriously, I would go to 48k

Curious as to why? If your final distribution format is 44.1KHz, you may as well go to that now (if your system can't sustain the higher sample rate). The higher sample rate 'quality' discussion is a rich (fraught!) debate but there's no benefit of 48KHz over 44.1KHz with modern systems.

(I'm ignoring JuanPC, he has nothing useful to contribute).

Cheers,
Pete

[albee1952]

Originally Posted by Pete Gates

Curious as to why? If your final distribution format is 44.1KHz, you may as well go to that now (if your system can't sustain the higher sample rate). The higher sample rate 'quality' discussion is a rich (fraught!) debate but there's no benefit of 48KHz over 44.1KHz with modern systems.

(I'm ignoring JuanPC, he has nothing useful to contribute).

Cheers,
Pete

Fair questions, but "no benefit"? Are you sure about that? Having worked at 44.1 for years and now at 48 for years, I do find a benefit. Is my hearing better? Don't know. Is it all psychological? Maybe. We could debate that for a year and never agree, so let's move on. So is 44.1K the "real" final distribution format? If your sales will be only CD, then the answer is yes, but before you jump on the 44.1 bandwagon, consider; the quality never gets better, it only gets worse. Why not work your audio at 48K until its mixed as good as it can be? Next step; mastering. Is the OP going to self-master? I always recommend using a real ME, but I understand the constraints of budget. In either case, sample rate conversion has gotten very good over the years(good for all of us) and the odds are good that a pro ME will have even better conversion available. Now what's the advantage of 44.1? I see none(and I hope the OP is working at 24 bits until the very end). The file size difference is about 15% and the hit on the computer is negligible when comparing 48K to 44.1K. Back to my original question as to whether 44.1K is the final "destination", maybe it isn't. Most music is downloaded these days. As much as I hate mp3's, I'd rather hear a high bit rate, 48K version. Just food for thought

[Pete Gates]

Originally Posted by albee1952

Fair questions, but "no benefit"? Are you sure about that? ...

Nope, I'm rarely 100% certain about anything as I get older. More and more shades of grey! Perhaps the better way of putting my opinion would be "potentially slight benefit".

Pete

[Pete Gates]

Regardless, what I was failing to convey - to the OP, not you - was, if you have to downsample from your acquisition format go straight to your delivery format, I wouldn't recommend also having an intermediate format. If he doesn't have any particular delivery format then 48KHz is obviously fine!

Cheers,
Pete

[feliponk]

Hi: if you have 96KHz media, the safest way should go down to 48 KHz, then on the mastering stage you can safely do another SRC to 44.1 KHz if that's the final format.

44.1KHz CD
48 KHz Video
88.2 KHz HiRes audio
96 KHz HiRes video

And so on up to 11 MHz DSD