24/441 to 24/96

  • Thread starter Thread starter deluci
  • Start date Start date
D

deluci

New member
does converting a 24/441 wav file to a 24/96 file inprove the quality?
also, if i bounce a 24 track song (wav) to 4 tracks (wav) for further processing and slight tweeks, do i loose any quality in the transfer? is it better to keep things the way they were until my final bounce to one stereo file?
 
deluci said:
does converting a 24/441 wav file to a 24/96 file inprove the quality?
Click to expand...
No. You will never have any more quality than you originally recorded.
deluci said:
also, if i bounce a 24 track song (wav) to 4 tracks (wav) for further processing and slight tweeks, do i loose any quality in the transfer? is it better to keep things the way they were until my final bounce to one stereo file?
Click to expand...
Why would you do that? Why don't you just set up 4 sub groups (busses) and put the processing on those?

I'm assuming I'm missing something, the answer to your question is: No, you will loose quality when you process it. Any time you change the signal, you are loosing quality in the strictest sense.
 
deluci said:
does converting a 24/441 wav file to a 24/96 file inprove the quality?
also, if i bounce a 24 track song (wav) to 4 tracks (wav) for further processing and slight tweeks, do i loose any quality in the transfer? is it better to keep things the way they were until my final bounce to one stereo file?
Click to expand...


Fist question:
NO!

SECOND:
(Hey, maybe GLEN or another engineer can explain better, but...)

I personally think you ´will not loose any quality in a digital 24 bit bounce.
 
I'm not sure I undertsand exactly what "bounce" process the second question is describing, but if the basic question is, "If you copy a 24-bit track to more 24-bit tracks, will the copy process itself cause any degradation?" the answer is no, it'll just make exact duplicate copies.

And as ALWAYS, Jay is right on both answers* (you too Ciro :) ). Copying a file to one of increased sample rate will do nothing to help you out.

G.

* I hope that's better, J. :D
 
bennychico11 said:
Glen's not an engineer! He only plays one on TV





;)
Click to expand...
You're mistaking me for Choo Choo Charlie. :D

G.
 
Increasing the sample rate from 44.1 to 96k will not improve the sound quality. The reason being that you are adding samples, but you are not adding anything new to the samples. You can't add something that wasn't there in the first place.

There might be some that will feel that any processing/plugins you use at 96k will sound better than the same processing at 44.1k. So in that regard you may find an improvement, but I feel it would be a very slight improvement if at all. In any case, the original tracks would not be improved.

Farview gave you the correct answer to question number two. Why lock yourself into a submix when you can essentially do the same thing by bussing the tracks, and keep your mix flexibility too. I'm also not a huge fan of bouncing tracks. Better to mix them and record them to a new stereo pair.
 
.

maby i should explain in more detail. i have mixes that ive been working on in adobe audition. they are a trip hop type genre (lopops n such). anyway, im about ready to send them off to be mastered, and i want to make sure the mixes sound as good as i can make them. i cant figure out how to make a bus in audition, and i just got cakewalk sonar so i want to use that. (reason for the bouncing question).
... i dont want to change too much, maby some slight eq, noise reduction and possibly some excitement. but if the quality wont be any better working in a 24/96 enviroment, the i might as well keep the submixes in the same format as they've always been. i just hope i dont loose quality in transfering guitar, keys etc to one file, bass to another, druns and percussion to another, etc.
....................................sub question: does any one know of any good mastering companies with a reasonable price? ive got it narrowed down to either pappa e, cave audio, or vision sound, but im open to oyhers as well. ;)
 
You can also consolidate the individual tracks in Audition, saving each of them as a WAV file, and then line them up again in Sonar. It's a bit of work, but really won't take too long. Depends on how many tracks you have in each song.
 
SonicAlbert said:
You can also consolidate the individual tracks in Audition, saving each of them as a WAV file, and then line them up again in Sonar. It's a bit of work, but really won't take too long. Depends on how many tracks you have in each song.
Click to expand...
That's what he was talking about doing in the first post and I asked him why he would bother.
 
I thought he wanted to port the tracks over to Sonar so he could use the more advanced features of that program.
 
There's another issue to consider when changing editors:

You'll need to change the default pan rules in Sonar (ASIO Audio Options - General - Stereo Panning Law) to read "0dB center, balance control" if you want it to match closest the way that Audition defaults it's pan rules (Advanced Session Properties - Panning - L/R Cut Logarithmic). Even then, I'm not sure whether Sonar's pan is logarithmic. Be prepared to possibly have to remix track levels as the ultimate relative volumes in the pan space may not be identical.

For this reason, among others, I wouldn't recommend using two different editors for mixing the same project. Using different editors for different phases of the project - editing, mixing, mastering - is fine (I do it all the time myself), but using one for setting the mix and then different one for summing/mixing down/bouncing for the reasons given above. Mix and mixdown in the same editor.

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top