Question about sample rates and offline bounce

[IveGotTricksUpMySleeve]

no it has nothing to do with sound quality really when it comes to the requirements I've been trying to meet for the publishers.

They were literally listing a requirement of 192Khz for some of them

I'm doing very well actually right now
I'm getting nothing but positive feedback and opportunities have been opening up. that's what I'm preparing for.

I'm just always trying to superfluously push to get higher and higher quality as we all should be doing and there's nothing wrong with asking questions to do so.
in fact the only thing i'm actually trying to improve with this
is getting notes that fade out to silence to go more smoothly on their own instead of using fades and whatnot. Like a low piano note that hangs. actually i should have a lot less trouble with pianos because I just ordered a much better piano plugin and a really good convolution reverb plugin. half the battle is using good samples. I know the main thing I need to do next is invest in better mastering tools (UAD is looking more tempting everyday :P) , but yea I'm always improving and that's what counts.

They say a truly wise person always has more questions than answers
as soon as you stop asking questions, you stop growing

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by IveGotTricksUpMySleeve

why are some publishers requiring something crazy high like 192Khz when most digital composers have no way of actually getting that high of a sound quality.

I guess everyone is just converting to 192Khz and the film companies and just not aware.

either that or it only applies to real recorded orchestras.

Well, I guess I'll just stick to my good old 48Khz for now
and convert up when people ask for higher sample rates..

I've no idea who your client / publisher is, or why they would insist on delivery at 192kHz.

What bit depth, and format (2.0 / 5.0 etc) are they requesting?

I've personally never encountered a full orchestral session recorded any higher than 96kHz.

That's a real orchestra, where regardless of whether or not the higher sample rates make an appreciable difference to the recording, there is a mentality that "We're paying for Abbey Road studio one, and the L.S.O. We're damn well going to record at 96kHz".

But the final mix is not going to be at 96kHz, and never at 192kHz.

A typical film mix is going to have hundreds of audio tracks, broken down in to Dialogue, Effects, and Music.

If that mix session were running at 192kHz, you'd only be able to voice 24 audio tracks per HD Accel card (the majority of studios still running HD, rather than HDX).

Even if the mix were being done on an HDX equipped mixing stage, that's still only 64 tracks per HDX card.

Bearing in mind that it's pretty common for the Dialogue mixer, the FX mixer, and the Music mixer to be driving 2 or 3 HD Accel systems, linked, and running in to an additional HD system used as a dubber, just to cope with a regular 24bit / 48kHz film mix, you can see straight away that higher sample rates are completely impractical.


Really, the only time you'll encounter sound for film recorded at 192kHz, is when it was always the intention for that particular sound effect to be "varispeeded" down in pitch by several octaves, in order to scale up the size of the sound effect, or just turn it in to something less recognisable.

I can see no reason to compose with V.I.'s in a high sample rate session.

Likewise, if as you are doing, working in a regular sample rate (44.1kHz / 48kHz) there's no reason for printing the final mix at higher sample rates - it gains you nothing (I must stress I'm talking sample rate, not bit depth).

If however, you are required to deliver Masters to your publishers, or itunes store, at 192kHz (whatever bit depth, and stereo / surround format they request), or 96kHz / 24bit respectively, simply create a blank session of the appropriate format, and import your final mix / Master.

If your Pro Tools session preferences are set for interleaved audio files (as opposed to multi-mono), the import process will convert the files to the correct sample rate, bit depth, and Stereo interleaved / Poly Wav.

You just need to go to the audio files folder, and you have your delivery files, no exports / bounces / conversions necessary, and no chance of PT spitting out it's dummy when it converts sample rate after bounce to disk, which I've seen happen quite a few times.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by IveGotTricksUpMySleeve

I always thought that smoother more detailed waveforms would improve what I'm looking to improve regardless.

Let me put it this way: what do you need to know to be able to draw a perfect circle? You need its origin and radius, nothing more. If you have a gazillion points representing that circle, it is less perfect.

Same goes to audio waveforms. IF you only process <20kHz frequencies, then 40kHz sampling rate is able to perfectly reproduce everything there is. This is especially true with VI's because there is no AD conversion involved, the digital plug produces the sounds.

Only reason to go 96kHz would be making sure your sub-par AD converter does not sound nasty at the ~20kHz area. All mistakes would be in the 30-48kHz area which would be filtered out later. But that's not the case here.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by IveGotTricksUpMySleeve

or is it that it will improve it slighty because of the VI's being capable of filling in the spectrum.. but that running the session in 192 Khz would improve the quality more?

Are your monitors capable of reproducing 96kHz audio? Are your ears up to it?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by IveGotTricksUpMySleeve

why are some publishers requiring something crazy high like 192Khz when most digital composers have no way of actually getting that high of a sound quality.

Nobody knows. Back then some big suit probably decided that everything will be archived in the highest possible resolution, so they require 192kHz. There may have been a relevant point back then when stuff was delivered on analog tape reels and they decided to digitize those.

But now, just work at whatever sample rate you can, and then SRC your final mixes to whatever the customer wants.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by IveGotTricksUpMySleeve

I'm just always trying to superfluously push to get higher and higher quality as we all should be doing and there's nothing wrong with asking questions to do so.

So... Quality In --> Quality Out. Get better sounding instruments and use them better. That's what counts. [email protected] sounds pretty darn good to me, if you know how to use it. Articulation is everything! All those little things it can do is a million times more important than sampling rate.

[IveGotTricksUpMySleeve]

yea I guess it's pointless to bother with 192
but it was worth asking about..

yea I figure it was some big suit who didn't know what they were talking about who put up that requirement of 192.
It's probably not as common as I was thinking when I saw that.

I'm already on top of getting better VI's

Can't wait till they get delivered :)

I just ordered the Compete composers collection from east west
70 percent off but I got to wait a while to get it because during sales they take weeks to process orders.. can't afford VSL quite yet. It's going to take about a year or two to save up the 13 grand for the full version.

What do you guys suppose would be good when it comes to mastering plugins for getting really clear lower volumes... I know i should be using around 20 RMS for this stuff give or take and I'm pretty sure I'm going for UAD, but I'm thinking some sort of noise reduction plugin might help with those low volume parts. I mean they sound great as it is but I'd like to have almost zero white noise if possible during those parts. You know I'm a obsessive compulsive perfectionist so I won't sleep right until I get absolute perfection. I'm already leveling everything correctly and all of that so no need to tackle the obvious just if anyone has a suggestion for the best noise reduction plugin out there.. that would be helpful..

thanks to everyone for the tips so far :)

[JFreak]

Don't waste your time learning to master, put your effort into getting the most out of the VI's. But if what you want is lift your levels cleanly, then the most sensible thing to do is buying this limiter which you can demo free (it doesn't beep or mute, but it also don't recall your sessions when you open the session). I think this plug could cost a thousand dollars and people would still buy it, so for that price it is a no-brainer. In your case, just set it to "smooth" and "slow" and adjust threshold until you see 1..3db gain reduction. That's it.

[IveGotTricksUpMySleeve]

it's not a waste of time.

I already know how to master.. I have a diploma in music technology.
I don't find it that hard anyways. It's more a matter of just doing things in the right order and not overdoing anything with this genre. Just need a better program

but anyways thanks for the suggestion

I'll check that limiter out but I'll probably be buying a set that comes with a few limiters anyways. still good to have a selection either way.

so for UAD it'll cost me about 1000 bucks for the apollo and about 500 bucks for their precision mastering bundle. I can't seem to find an online dealer in canada though. 1500 is pretty cheap. I don't like the looks of UAD's EQ though. No graph representation of the frequency response at all. I mean I can work with that but why make it so inconvenient. Now i'm having second thoughts about UAD because of it's unavailability here... I'm going to have to do more looking around I think. They have it listed as being sold on sweetwater which i thought would sell to canada but they aren't listing sweetwater under the options for buying online in canada.
we'll see :)

[IveGotTricksUpMySleeve]

I'll probably just buy a different eq to use with the rest of the UAD tools. I've become spoiled and enjoy having a visual of the frequency response a little too much :P