Mixing sample rate question

[eclips1]

I'm recording an album at 24bit 96k. I'm going to send it to a different studio for mixing though. When choosing a studio to mix at, is it better to mix at 96k, and let the sample rate conversion be done when the album is sent out for mastering. Or is it the same quality if we converted to 48k for mixing?

I ask because the studio I want to mix at doesn't have 96k compatability.

[Farview]

You would be better off mixing at 96. You want to keep all the resolution that you have until the very end.

[LRosario]

You recorded it at 96k so it's probably best to leave it that way for now. However, that's usually overkill considering the typical mediums it will be played on. It becomes impractical since we really don't have CD players that play 96k audio (aside from SACD)

At best, it will be DVD audio quality (for playback), which is 24bit 48k, which is what most mastering engineers ask for. It will end up 16bit 44.1k for CD audio, regardless.


Aside from that, if you're planning on using plug-ins, some plug-ins won't even work at resolutions that high, which is why setting to a resonable level (like 24bit 48k) would work well.

Remember, you can only go down in quality, never back up.

[bennychico11]

those two comments aside....

if you can get a better result mixing in a studio with better gear, better monitoring environment, etc., I would say it's worth downsampling it to 48KHz and then taking it over. It's going to be down sampled eventually and you'd probably be better off finding the perfect place to mix it in that worrying about your sample rate. Staying at 96KHz doesn't matter if you're in a crappy room with crappy gear

[eclips1]

Thanks for the feedback.

[firby]

Just dither it when you downsample...

[xstatic]

Stay at 96 k as long as possible. In the end it will yield better results, even when it gets to a 16 bit 44 k CD. However, if you are confident in your choices of studios where you want to mix, and they can not do 96k, then drop it down to the highest sample rate that they can use. Good gear with good engineers far outweighs any benefits of sample rates.

[Farview]

Originally Posted by firby

Just dither it when you downsample...

Dithering is for changing bit depth, not sample rate. If you go from 24 bit to 16 bit you dither. going from 96k to 44.1k, you don't.

[dgatwood]

If you have a high quality audio interface, ideally it should make no difference whether you record at 44.1kHz or 88.2 kHz (or whatever). In the real world, it isn't that easy. To avoid aliasing, analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) in your audio hardware have a low-pass filter. It rolls off the sound at a particular rate, with essentially a complete cut from the Nyquist point (half the samle rate) upwards.

Since there is no such thing as a perfect filter (and particularly so in analog electronics... , this may result in high frequency roll-off significantly below the Nyquist point. Most people won't know the difference, but if you have good ears, you very well may.

Thus, with lesser quality filter hardware, it can often be better to record at a higher sample rate, then down-sample it to something more sane. Also, I'm told that if you're doing any audio frequency or time alteration, higher sample rates result in less artifacting. Your mileage may vary.

As for the question of dithering and sample rate conversion, there's no reason you couldn't add a little bit of time-domain noise (a random fraction of the sample preceding or following the one you actually use) to make factor-of-two rate conversions (e.g. 88.2kHz to 44.1kHz) sound better. In theory, it might give the perception of better high frequency performance in much the same way that dithering gives the appearance of higher bit depth. I doubt humans could perceive it, though.

What might be nice would be something similar to dithering to help mask the artifacting inherent in non-factor-of-two rate conversions like 96kHz to 44.1. That might actually not be a bad idea.... At best, those sorts of conversions hurt my head to think about.