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

[Farview]

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.

I record and mix music for whomever wants me to. If it will be released on CD, 44.1/24bit is just fine and accepted by all of my clients.

 

[donkeystyle]

You always talk about something without supporting yourself.
Do not just talk shit.Explain!Like I do.

i'm just stating what everyone else is thinking. as a pro you should know that the type of mic doesn't matter as long as it works in the mix. sometimes a u47 is what you need for the vocals on a song and sometimes an re-20 is what you need.

there are some real pro's that use this forum, you should stick around and try to learn something from them.

 

[ds21]

You should have made yourself more clear in the beginnig, and said the major record companies recomended, because that leaves out a whole big big segment, if it just has to be deliverd to them in 88+ then that can be done in the mastering stage as a lot of the SACD are done (bumped up from 16/44 to 24/96/192), dosen't mean we have to record it as such, it's sad when I hear people (consumers) talk about how old CD's in SACD is so much better because it's 24/192 when it's just up coverted.

 

[Rado]

what ever.
what a clients.
Well when tomorrow they come to me cause they like my sound better do not cry.
Buy

 

[grn]

actually it doesn't matter, what matters if you're "pro" is if people buy it.

 

[bennychico11]

Well if you really do post production in modern age 96khz 24 bit is the absoulute minimum.

actually, you're wrong. i work in a post production facility and the video editors (using Avid Adrenaline systems) actually request that I give them a 48kHz, 16 bit file. why, must you ask? ever worked with Sony Digital Betacam or Sony Betacam tape/recorders?? They work in either 48kHz, 16bit or 48kHz, 24bit. Most post production facilities that are not taping to 35mm and/or doing work on digital recorders that support up to 96kHz during production, are using tapes like Digibeta, beta, DV Cam, etc. And if you're shooting production audio on 48kHz, you're gonna have to edit it at 48. Hell, I don't think that the Avid editor's software at my work (Avid Media Composer Adrenaline) supports higher than 48kHz. And also according to the specs on Apple's Final Cut Pro (another popular video editing program in the business) it only supports up to 48kHz as well. Also, not to mention, if you are using licensed music they either a) come on red book CDs or b) hard drives that contain 48kHz broadcast Wave or Aiff files....trust me. this i know for sure.

I even get more requests from clients (not editors) for MP3s than anything for radio commercials. You know why? 'Cause the consumer can't tell the difference at all. So companies stopped caring. I can't count how many times I've tried to explain to a client why MP3 is not the greatest format....i ended up just giving up and doing what they said, they pay my bills.

 

[mshilarious]

I'm still waiting for you to read Dan Lavry's whitepaper and draft a rebuttal.

 

[Rokket]

Well I'm not a pro, and I never will be. I'd say a good portion of the membership on this board are not pros, just home recordists. 16 bit 44.1khz is user friendly for my pc. My software will do 96, but my pc won't like it. 16 bit is good enough for commerical cd's and it's good enough for me. I can tell the difference, but like bennychico said, most consumers can't. My music is for me, and to share with my family. They are the average consumer. I can hear the mistakes that I made, or the editing I've done; they can't and they don't care to. They are just amazed that something I have created is playing from their cd player (in .CDA format, 16 bit 44.1kzh)...

 

[PHILANDDON]

Here's a question from an amateur:

Putting aside the question of whether the companies want 24bit/96k masters, do you think a simple two-track (voice and guitar or voice and piano) recording with minimal processing (a little digital reverb and compression) would sound better if recorded at 24bit/96k and dithered/SRC'd down to 16bit/44.1? I don't record with a lot of tracks so computer memory is not an issue for me.

Thanks for answering.

 

[PapillonIrl]

If you have good mics, good converters, a real piano miced well, and good monitors then it will... especially if it's your own voice.

A few experienced singer\songwriters I worked were quick to spot a difference, I guess it's their familiarity with their own voice\instrument.

Over just a couple of tracks, it will NOT be a big difference though, and alot depends on the converter quality.

Nathan

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Well I'm not a pro, and I never will be. I'd say a good portion of the membership on this board are not pros, just home recordists. 16 bit 44.1khz is user friendly for my pc. My software will do 96, but my pc won't like it. 16 bit is good enough for commerical cd's and it's good enough for me. I can tell the difference, but like bennychico said, most consumers can't. My music is for me, and to share with my family. They are the average consumer. I can hear the mistakes that I made, or the editing I've done; they can't and they don't care to. They are just amazed that something I have created is playing from their cd player (in .CDA format, 16 bit 44.1kzh)...

Well said! And I speculate most members here are in a similar situation and would totally agree.

 

[enferno]

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.

we actually have a 40 i/o protools HD system.

ww.jstreetrecorders.com

 

[Rado]

we actually have a 40 i/o protools HD system.

ww.jstreetrecorders.com

Your web soesn't work.
And for the HD...Protools haven't done anything in 48 exept digi001 and more recent Mbox.

 

[Rado]

actually, you're wrong. i work in a post production facility and the video editors (using Avid Adrenaline systems) actually request that I give them a 48kHz, 16 bit file. why, must you ask? ever worked with Sony Digital Betacam or Sony Betacam tape/recorders?? They work in either 48kHz, 16bit or 48kHz, 24bit. Most post production facilities that are not taping to 35mm and/or doing work on digital recorders that support up to 96kHz during production, are using tapes like Digibeta, beta, DV Cam, etc. And if you're shooting production audio on 48kHz, you're gonna have to edit it at 48. Hell, I don't think that the Avid editor's software at my work (Avid Media Composer Adrenaline) supports higher than 48kHz. And also according to the specs on Apple's Final Cut Pro (another popular video editing program in the business) it only supports up to 48kHz as well. Also, not to mention, if you are using licensed music they either a) come on red book CDs or b) hard drives that contain 48kHz broadcast Wave or Aiff files....trust me. this i know for sure.


HDTV is 96khz 24 bit
DVD is 96khz or 192 khz 24 bits
Digibeta are past...Go shoot dating shows in vegas with them.
And for the final cut pro...and new avid you are so wrong!
Not to mention that Nuendo Pro tools and sequa is where you work on sound track dialoge FXs.If you mix audio on video production soft you got yourself the wrong job!!!
I understand the licensed music people use ar 48khz.DOn't argue about that.

 

[MadAudio]

How can you speak in such absolutes when you have already acknowledged that the tools are always changing?

If it sounds good, it is good.

 

[Rado]

You should have made yourself more clear in the beginnig, and said the major record companies recomended, because that leaves out a whole big big segment, if it just has to be deliverd to them in 88+ then that can be done in the mastering stage as a lot of the SACD are done (bumped up from 16/44 to 24/96/192), dosen't mean we have to record it as such, it's sad when I hear people (consumers) talk about how old CD's in SACD is so much better because it's 24/192 when it's just up coverted.

Your statement doesn't make any sense!!!!!!
(bumped up from 16/44 to 24/96/192)????????????
What are you talking about.
What is the F*CKIN POINT.up coverted??????
What is this a pre school?????
ARGGGGGGGGGG

 

[jake-owa]

You sir are a moron.

You come here to belittle homerecorders about your so called industry standards. We could not care less what you and your pro pals are up to.

Go tell someone who gives a fuck you dipshit.

 

[bennychico11]

HDTV is 96khz 24 bit
DVD is 96khz or 192 khz 24 bits
Digibeta are past...Go shoot dating shows in vegas with them.
And for the final cut pro...and new avid you are so wrong!
Not to mention that Nuendo Pro tools and sequa is where you work on sound track dialoge FXs.If you mix audio on video production soft you got yourself the wrong job!!!
I understand the licensed music people use ar 48khz.DOn't argue about that.

HDTV is not yet a standard in the television market. It's still brand new...and shooting in HD is pretty expensive for many smaller studios How many HDTVs do you have at home? DVD is not the final medium for any TV commercials. all local TV or cable stations request Betas.
as far as Final Cut: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/specs.html
go look there under audio. 48kHz.
Avid Media Composer Adrenalin: http://avid.com/products/datasheets/composer_adrenaline.pdf
under audio specs, the software supports 48kHz. Only the hardware supports up to 96 right now....for future expansion that is not yet supported).

I don't mix audio in video software. I do it all in Pro Tools. Trust me, I know how to use Pro Tools.
And if you understand that licensed music is at 48kHz maximum....then why are you saying "studios refuse anything less than 96?"

face it dude, you're wrong. if 99% of the people here on the forum say you're wrong, just think what 99% of engineers around the country would say.
No one is disputing the fact that 96kHz is better. the math has been proven. but saying that 96kHz is the only thing that studios will accept is ludicrous. a client is a client....and if he brings you something at 44.1kHz, 16bit...then be sure to point him my way after you tell him "I don't do anything lower than 96kHz." I'd be glad for the extra work

 

[Rado]

Here's a question from an amateur:

Putting aside the question of whether the companies want 24bit/96k masters, do you think a simple two-track (voice and guitar or voice and piano) recording with minimal processing (a little digital reverb and compression) would sound better if recorded at 24bit/96k and dithered/SRC'd down to 16bit/44.1? I don't record with a lot of tracks so computer memory is not an issue for me.

Thanks for answering.

ABSOLUTLY!!!!!!
That is how AD compresion works.Doesn't metter audio or Video.
It converts voltage into Digital data.
Imagine the new STARWars movies are all shot digital with Sony Cinealta
with 1920 active pixels horizontally by 1080 active pixels
vertically.
The movie is converted from HD 1080 to SD 480.
You can use miniDV camcorder with the same resolution and you will never capture so much detail.AM I WRONG?
Everything is hidden in the converters.Better converters-better resolution-better detail-better quality.
DESN't METTER IF YOU DOWNGRADE to lower resolution.
BY the way.Do not forget dyther when you downgrade.

 

[boingoman]

Your statement doesn't make any sense!!!!!!
(bumped up from 16/44 to 24/96/192)????????????
What are you talking about.
What is the F*CKIN POINT.up coverted??????
What is this a pre school?????
ARGGGGGGGGGG

Does this thread have a point besides "Rado is a dickhead"?

If not, we can close it. The point has been made. This guy would be great in the Berhinger debates.