I am sick of 44khz vs 96 khz argument from amatuers!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rado
  • Start date Start date
Rado - you last point is good one, but you still seem to ignore the already stated fact that this is HomeRecording.com, not a site for pros who record for the "industy." So berating amateurs and semi-pro people for not using 96k seems a bit harsh.

I appreciate you wanting to contribute, but just remember you can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
 
an example for keeping up with the latest technologies.!!

Rme MIDI remote controllable version
of TotalMix March 11 2007

Do I really have to explain how happy drunk I got after I tryed it. ;)

RME Totalmix v 2.0.0.2 March 17 2005

The main volume of the Fireface is controlable from nearly any MIDI equipped hardware device.Like the the 9th fader of the Mackie control.


These are amaizing things that are happening infront of my eyes and my productivity is to the roof.! :eek:
 
That AES report was a recommendation for future practices, and a valiant effort to standardise things in an environment where technology ws rapidly advancing.

Also nowhere in the whole paper does it even recommend that things should be tracked or mixed at a particular sample rate. The main thrust of the 88kHz+ thing was for people transferring from digtal to an analog master tape.The quality of the D\A conversion here is very important.

Only in one other place do they recommend (as a sidenote, in brackets) that final masters should be, ideally, delivered in a format with 88.1kHz + samplerate.

That whole paper was about 'future-proofing' recordings. This is an important thing. But so is making a living, which is why this (albeit impressively forward thinking) paper does not represent the real world standard just yet. Especially in the tracking stage, where the downturn in the music industry has people cutting corners everywhere. There are alot of tracks cut in a basement and mixed in Neve\SSL rooms right now.

Nathan
 
MadAudio said:
Rado - you last point is good one, but you still seem to ignore the already stated fact that this is HomeRecording.com, not a site for pros who record for the "industy." So berating amateurs and semi-pro people for not using 96k seems a bit harsh.

I appreciate you wanting to contribute, but just remember you can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.
Click to expand...

I understand that.Ok some of the people here want to jam in the basement and have fun.But some of the people want to grow. I direct this to the second kind of people
In every media-audio-video production there are standerds to be set and followed.
I guess people here try to send there music to record companies and labels.Why not know how to do it by yourself instead of paying somebody to do it.
I can afford to do what I do cause I prety much do everything by myself(exept ACtion script for Flash)I HATE IT). I do not count my labor.


Here is a link for the Recommendation for delivery of recorded music projects


http://aes.org/technical/documents/AESTD1002.1.03-10_1.pdf


I apologies if I offended somebody.Didn''t mean to.
 
PapillonIrl said:
That AES report was a recommendation for future practices, and a valiant effort to standardise things in an environment where technology ws rapidly advancing.

Also nowhere in the whole paper does it even recommend that things should be tracked or mixed at a particular sample rate. The main thrust of the 88kHz+ thing was for people transferring from digtal to an analog master tape.The quality of the D\A conversion here is very important.

Only in one other place do the recommend (as a sidenote, in brackets) that final masters should be delivered in a format with 88.1kHz + samplerate.

That whole paper was about 'future-proofing' recordings. This is an important thing. But so is making a living, which is why this (albeit impressively forward thinking) paper does not represent the real world standard just yet. Especially in the tracking stage, where the downturn in the music industry has people cutting corners everywhere. There are alot of tracks cut in a basement and mixed in Neve\SSL rooms right now.

Nathan
Click to expand...
If ok 88.1 96 is not the real digital world standard then maybe I am just crazy hearing the deference between 44 and 96.Not to mention when digital sound procesing.
I bet you can here it to.
take a dvd with a song you know included in the sound track.Listen.Now listen to the cd. One of the reasons people say music on dvd sounds unrealistic is because the cd is unrealistic and people are not use to DVD.
 
enferno said:
the studio i work in doesn't even have 96khz capability. our max is 48. we have a protools system, and it was top of the line a year and a half ago. we are the biggest studio in nor cal.

are you really that thick skulled?
Click to expand...

I am maybe thick skulled but at least I support my arguments with facts.
Protools 48khz top of the line year and a hald ao is just incorrect. I hope you are not reffering to Mbox as THE TOP OF THE LINE. :)
Digi 001 was released when???2001??5 years ago.
 
Look, I do present masters to record labels. Big ones and small ones alike. I give them the masters at 44.1 24 bit, they like that and then they pay me. I am a member of AES and my understanding of that report is the same as PapillonIrl's.
If the labels start telling me any different, I will let you know.
 
Rado said:
If ok 88.1 96 is not the real digital world standard then maybe I am just crazy hearing the deference between 44 and 96.Not to mention when digital sound procesing.
I bet you can here it to.
take a dvd with a song you know included in the sound track.Listen.Now listen to the cd. One of the reasons people say music on dvd sounds unrealistic is because the cd is unrealistic and people are not use to DVD.
Click to expand...

I can hear a difference too, especially when using digital plugins such as the UAD-1 card and others. I can hear a substantial difference between busy mixes at 44.1 and 88.1 when there are digital plugs and alot of harmonically complex instruments.

Is it worth the extra disk space, the heavier CPU load, being able to run less plugs etc. ?

Sometimes, mostly not, for the sessions I have coming in at the moment anyway. I like to do it with sparse singer song-writer tracks with piano, strings, alot of cymbal work etc. but not containing too many tracks.


When I get get my new console and D/A converter this may be a different story.

My point is, your statement 'nobody will accept anything less than...' misses the point of the AES paper entirely, and is just plain wrong. They were recommending (not demanding) engineers (not labels or even ME's in particular) to archive recordings in a certain way to future-proof them.

I'll bet I could get a recording I did when I was 17 on a Rolland VS machine mixed in Abbey Road if I payed them.

See where I'm coming from ?

Nathan
 
Farview said:
Look, I do present masters to record labels. Big ones and small ones alike. I give them the masters at 44.1 24 bit, they like that and then they pay me. I am a member of AES and my understanding of that report is the same as PapillonIrl's.
If the labels start telling me any different, I will let you know.
Click to expand...


No offense but looking at your mic selection....I did not see a single vocal mic you own.Do you only record instrumental music?Or just the record labels you work with doesn't care how the vocal sounds.
And non of the ADs you have are more then 48.
 
That is funny, because I know many pros that don't use 96 even on albums that are national on Epic.
 
Rado said:
No offense but looking at your mic selection....I did not see a single vocal mic you own.Do you only record instrumental music?Or just the record labels you work with doesn't care how the vocal sounds.
Click to expand...

what exactly constitutes a vocal mic? that statement reminds me of people that don't know anything about recording referring to condenser mics as recording mics and dynamics as live mics. "i've got some sm 57's but i don't have any recording mics"
 
O yes.
And not only ad convertion but the DA is so important for good representation of the digital sound.
 
donkeystyle said:
what exactly constitutes a vocal mic? that statement reminds me of people that don't know anything about recording referring to condenser mics as recording mics and dynamics as live mics. "i've got some sm 57's but i don't have any recording mics"
Click to expand...


Well I wouldn't consider even touching SM 57.
I have nothing against it exept I do not like how it sounds and SM 57 is a big advartising crap.
If I could use only condesers in a nice space I'd be more then happy. :p
 
Rado said:
Well I wouldn't consider even touching SM 57.
I have nothing against it exept I do not like how it sounds and SM 57 is a big advartising crap.
If I could use only condesers in a nice space I'd be more then happy. :p
Click to expand...

i'm not really a fan of the mic either, but you missed the point.
 
donkeystyle said:
i'm not really a fan of the mic either, but you missed the point.
Click to expand...
sorry i missed it.
vocal mic is nice large condenser
a quality small condeser works as well on screaming loud singers or hip hop
 
Rado said:
sorry i missed it.
vocal mic is nice large condenser
a quality small condeser works as well on screaming loud singers or hip hop
Click to expand...

you're definitely showing how pro you are. definitely.
 
donkeystyle said:
you're definitely showing how pro you are. definitely.
Click to expand...

You always talk about something without supporting yourself.
Do not just talk shit.Explain!Like I do. :)
 
By the why....
Even Live I use small condesor for vocals and hi hats.
Sometimes I put KSm 44 large condersor figure 8 on toms congas bass amps.

O yes. An if you have nothing else to shit about.Why dont you catch me on my spelling or something stupid like that.
 
Rado said:
No offense but looking at your mic selection....I did not see a single vocal mic you own.Do you only record instrumental music?Or just the record labels you work with doesn't care how the vocal sounds.
And non of the ADs you have are more then 48.
Click to expand...
The site hasn't been updated in quite a while. I can do 96K. A lot of times I will do the recording somewhere else and mix here. I also get tracks that were recorded other places to edit and mix. Anyway, you must havbe missed my MD-1, it is one of the original ones not the new ones. I also have a Neumann m-147. Anyway this is off the subject, Warner Brothers, Universal, Metal Blade, Nuclear Blast, Roadrunner, SPV, etc... seem to think I am doing a fine job and have not asked me to change my delivery format. Some of my mixes are upwards of 60 tracks, I would need to strap that across 3 or 4 computers at 96k.
 
Farview said:
The site hasn't been updated in quite a while. I can do 96K. A lot of times I will do the recording somewhere else and mix here. I also get tracks that were recorded other places to edit and mix. Anyway, you must havbe missed my MD-1, it is one of the original ones not the new ones. I also have a Neumann m-147. Anyway this is off the subject, Warner Brothers, Universal, Metal Blade, Nuclear Blast, Roadrunner, SPV, etc... seem to think I am doing a fine job and have not asked me to change my delivery format. Some of my mixes are upwards of 60 tracks, I would need to strap that across 3 or 4 computers at 96k.
Click to expand...

Now we talking. :)
I wish I had Neumann m-147. I wil sleep with him every night and kiss him .haha
I don't know what you do but it seams like post production of some sort.
Well if you really do post production in modern age 96khz 24 bit is the absoulute minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top