Do you render up before mastering?

[scottmd06]

My standalone digital audio recorder records at CD quality (16bit/44.1khz) and I was wondering if it's favorable to render that up to 32bit/96khz within my audio mastering software, perform my EQ, compression and normalizing steps, then render back down to 16bit/44.1khz to use the file for cd burning or encoding to mp3 for web use? I understand that theres even higher qualities to render to, but 32bit/96khz is the most that my system can handle. Are there any advantages to mastering at a higher quality and rendering down or is it the same as just mastering at cd quality (16bit/44.1khz) straight across? Thanks!!!

 

[Massive Master]

The typical answer would be to try it both ways.

The normal answer would be not to mess with the sample rate if there's no particular reason to do so.

The side-note answer would be that your software is almost undoubtedly throwing calculations in 32-bit anyway.

One question raised is why your dumping to a stand-alone CD recorder first...? Is it really necessary? I've heard so few that have reasonable converters...

 

[scottmd06]

I'm tracking on a Zoom 8-track digital standalone, saving the project file to cd-rom, importing the raw tracks into my computer-based Cakewalk software for mixing down and adding effects, then using Sony Sound Forge for mastering. I just recently started mastering with the modern technique of allowing the first few db of peaks saturate in the normalization process in order to achieve greater volume and I've noticed less audible distortion while using this method at higher bit depths and sampling rates and then rendering down. I'm trying to figure out if it's my ears fooling me because I want it to work out this way or if their actually is less audible distortion when the peaks saturate at higher qualities.

 

[scottmd06]

I ran across another thread discussing these where a mastering engineer explained that mastering at the higher frequency and bitrate then dithering down to the 44.1khz/16bit actually does have advantages in reducing audible distortion when saturating the sound because most of the frequencies being "smashed" are in frequency ranges that are lost when dithering back.. Anyone have any information or experience to the validity of this??

 

[Waltz Mastering]

I don't think there is any one right answer for this.

Some will say there is a subjective advantage to have your plug ins and processing done at the higher sample rate but then this is weighed against the objective disadvantages or trade offs of up sampling and then down sampling.

I usually work with what ever the sample rate the files come in on but within a 24 bit environment.

Maybe try it both ways and see what works best for your ears.