PT "Mastering" session: tracks varying between 48k and 96k...

[RecordingMaster]

Hi there,
I am "mastering" 5 tracks for my band's next demo...hence the reason why we don't have the budget for actual mastering on this project. It's just an EP and everything is done on our own for this one -right down to the graphic design and cd pressing, etc.

The 3 earlier-recorded tracks were all recorded at 24-bit / 48k in different software. So the song's exported state will be 24 bit/48k wav file.

The 2 later-recorded tracks were done on a newer/better interface at 24 bit / 96 k. So those songs have been exported as 24 bit / 96 k files.

I want to bring each of these into a PT session to "master". Basically applying some very minimal broadstroke eq to match each tracks high and low end the best as possible to each other, bus compress and limiter for loudness (these plugins all separately applied to each track). Done. That being said, what shall i do about the sample conversion? The session will be started at 24 bit / 96 k. So when i bring in the 48k tracks, I assume I should have PT upconvert them? I just didn't know if this would do anything to the file or not,since you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. As in, upconverting a 48k file to 96 wont suddenly improve it, but I assume i MUST do so in order for those tracks to even get into this 96k mastering session.

I need them all in one session so i can easily switch back and forth to each track in order to A/B everything to make sure the EQ and loudness are all equal.

What says y'all? Thanks in advance for the help!

 

[Massive Master]

If they all need to be open in the same session, then yes -- Either upsample the 48's to 96 or downsample the 96's to 48.



Why is everyone suddenly using video rates for audio projects...?

 

[Seafroggys]

Slight thread hi-jack.....is 96 considered a video rate? I'm recording my next album at 88.2, but plan to bring some tracks (mainly acoustic guitars, pianos, and vocals) into a pro studio. I was under the understanding that most studios do it at 96, but I thought that was a video rate. I dunno.....kinda meandering here but I've been meaning to post about this, even though its technically not mastering, just Massive reminded me to ask that.

 

[Massive Master]

48k and 96k (and multiples thereof) are video rates.

It's not the end of the world or anything -- But depending on the algorithm at the point of resampling, it's a relatively complex calculation vs. a dead-simple calculation. Even with more complex upsample/downsample rate adjustments, resampling at simple multiples is freakishly fast by comparison. The "precision is already there" vs. upsampling to ridiculous rates to make the downsample more accurate.

If you're doing your project at 88.2, just tell the studio to track you at 88.2 (personally, if they say something like "but 96kHz sounds so much better..." then just find another studio anyway).

 

[RecordingMaster]

If they all need to be open in the same session, then yes -- Either upsample the 48's to 96 or downsample the 96's to 48.



Why is everyone suddenly using video rates for audio projects...?

Ok great, thanks that is reassuring. I was overthinking it again as usual.

Video rates? I know nothing of this "video" you speak of! But seriously though, I basically just tracked at 96, which was the highest I could go at the time. Call it ignorant, but my theory was: yes, songs will be downsampled for mp3's and other various formats, but I might as well have a higher fidelity for the original content if I can, then it gets downsampled from there for the given medium.

 

[Massive Master]

No intention of starting a multi-page "White Paper" list or anything, but have you listened to your converters at 96kHz vs the target rates...? Can you hear the difference? If you can is it actually *better* at multiples of the target rates?

(A) You might find that many converters actually sound better at the target rates.

(B) You'll likely find that in polls of full-time industry professionals, somewhere between 75 and 85% (depending on the poll) work nearly exclusively at the target rate.

I'm not necessarily saying "don't record at multiples" -- I'm just suggesting my usual platitudinal goofiness -- If you're not making recordings that are at the very top of the list of "The Best Sounding and Greatest Audiophile Recordings Ever Made" it isn't the fault of the sampling rate...

 

[RecordingMaster]

No intention of starting a multi-page "White Paper" list or anything, but have you listened to your converters at 96kHz vs the target rates...? Can you hear the difference? If you can is it actually *better* at multiples of the target rates?

(A) You might find that many converters actually sound better at the target rates.

(B) You'll likely find that in polls of full-time industry professionals, somewhere between 75 and 85% (depending on the poll) work nearly exclusively at the target rate.

I'm not necessarily saying "don't record at multiples" -- I'm just suggesting my usual platitudinal goofiness -- If you're not making recordings that are at the very top of the list of "The Best Sounding and Greatest Audiophile Recordings Ever Made" it isn't the fault of the sampling rate...

To be honest, I do hear a difference in the two songs recorded at 96 vs the three songs at 48. That being said, AFAIK the only real way to compare would be to have recorded the exact same source, in the same room with the same mic, blah blah at both 48 and 96 to accurately measure with my ears which sounds "better". Which I have not done. I also hadn't even compared a single track (say a kick drum I always record the same way) at 48 from one session vs a kick at 96 from a different session. But tracks stacked as a whole to me sound better for these tunes I did at 96. Maybe it's because the drums were recorded with more care, maybe it's because I recorded guitars in a different room, or maybe it's new mixing skills I have acquired over that time.

Needless to say, I was totally ignorant and basically just recorded at the highest rate possible and didn't look back. Mind you I can't foresee any reason in the near future to go any higher than 96. I just ordered an Echo Audiofire12 and I sure wont be using the highest resolution it offers. To be honest I never new an interface had a target rate. I come from a musical background and not a bits n' samples n' numbers type of hobby. So I'm relatively new within the past few years to that stuff.

I have never heard of target rates, can't find much on Google about them, and don't know how to figure out which target rate a given interface has.

Thanks for the insight into that theory/phenomenon or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Massive Master]

I'm just saying "target rate" as the target --- Audio 44.1kHz, video 48kHz.

 

[RecordingMaster]

Oooooh.

I see. Well to answer the question of why I did the original tunes at 48 (video), it was because those were recorded in Adobe Audition CS5.5 cursing: don't even get me started), and that was the default sample rate, so I just went with it.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Why is everyone suddenly using video rates for audio projects...?

Because if there's any money to be made it's going to come from getting songs placed in a film or TV production, and in a world of mp3 listeners nobody is going to object to music recorded at 48kHz and downsampled to 44.1kHz.

 

[RecordingMaster]

Yikes the more I am reading about this, the more I am realizing I should just stick to 44.1. It is not audio for blueray or a film score. And I am also reading rumors that 96k downsampled to 44.1 doesn't translate very good. If that's true, that sucks. Woops.

And the more I try to remember, I think I may have recorded the first three songs in fact at 44.1 and NOT 48. I'll need to check when I get home. If that's the case, I assume I should start the "mastering" session at 44.1 and downsample the other two 96k songs to 44.1 for the mastering session? The math is coming to me now. I never put two and two together that 48, 96, 192 are all just multiples for audio and then 44.1, 88.2 for audio.

Definitely learn something everyday.

 

[RecordingMaster]

Because if there's any money to be made it's going to come from getting songs placed in a film or TV production, and in a world of mp3 listeners nobody is going to object to music recorded at 48kHz and downsampled to 44.1kHz.

If I am not mistaken by my "reasearch" today, audio only needs to be at the same sample rate as video if the audio was recorded OF that video scene. As in a live concert with audio/video, or a film score. However an audio soundtrack recorded at 44.1 and placed into a 48 k movie or 96k blueray will get along fine since there is no syncing. I am hoping this is true? However I'd wonder about if you planned on filming a music video after the fact and the band is lip syncing along with the 44.1 cd track while shooting the 48k vid, if that would sync up later in editing. However that mustn't be an issue, because I'm sure the "majority of the industry pros" recording music projects at 44.1 are most-definitely intended to have a music video for the release after the fact.

 

[RecordingMaster]

As of today I was convinced after reading here and elsewhere that I would, going forward (for now), record/mix at 44.1 for audio-only projects. But now I am finding that a plugin will perform better at a higher sample rate (after all, a plugin is an enhancement of sorts, right?) which makes total sense to me. If I took a pixellated picture at 72dpi off the internet and tried to enhance the colour or edit something on it, the end result would be inferior compared to if I edited the original high res file, and THEN saved it down to a 72dpi format.

One would think this applies to audio editing tools too (like plugins), but maybe the difference is so subtle, the average plugin would not make much of an audible difference processing a 96k file vs 44.1.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

If I am not mistaken by my "reasearch" today, audio only needs to be at the same sample rate as video if the audio was recorded OF that video scene.

For me it has nothing to do with syncing. I can sync 44.1kHz audio to video just as easily. It's so any recording I do that ends up in film or video has to go through one less sample rate conversion. It's not that conversion is even a big deal, but if I have to choose between having my audio at its native rate for either video or audio delivery I'll choose the video. The downsampled CD quality audio sounds fine and if it ends up in a film/video production it's even better.