what is the best format to mix a quality sounded mix?

  • Thread starter Thread starter n4eem
  • Start date Start date
N

n4eem

New member
hey, was just wondering what is the best format to export ur songs on for studio sounding quality?? WAV or MP3 if MP3 what bit rate would you suggest? thanx
 
Between the two wav for sure. Just don't go below 44.1 & 16 bit (standard cd quality)

If you're taking it somewhere else for more work wav files can be higher quality than cd and you may want to ask them.

F.S.
 
24-bit PCM at the target's native rate.
 
Massive Master said:
24-bit PCM at the target's native rate.
Click to expand...

That's why I try to never be deffenative.

What would you use this format for, to go to mastering? and then they dither it down?


f.S.
 
huh...
I thought it was wav too. And what does the targets native rate mean?



nuther thread to watch... ;)
 
Mis-typed there -

24-bit PCM at the *project's* native rate. However, I tend to record at the *target* rate by default anyway (as around 80% of people do).
 
I don't mean to sound rude.....but for some reason I'm actually bemused that the question was asked in the first place.
I mean, fucking MP3's?...cheeeeeesusssss! (and 'studio sounding quality' used in the same sentence?)
Again, I apologise....it's just the way of the world now, i guess.... :confused:

it's been one of those days... :(
 
Dogbreath said:
huh...
I thought it was wav too. And what does the targets native rate mean?
Click to expand...

In case you didn't catch it already.... native rate for CD is 44.1K. That's what we're talking about.

-C
 
I record at as high a sample rate as possible. Usually 96K, 24 bit. I mix in 24 bit 44.1K since my computer runs alot slower at anything above 44.1K. I would mix at as high a sample rate as your recordings are/how much your cpu can handle.

Eck
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
In case you didn't catch it already.... native rate for CD is 44.1K. That's what we're talking about.

-C
Click to expand...

OK...I guess I knew it but didn't know I knew it. :D
Thanks man.... :cool:
 
never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever try to accomplish anything in audio with the use of mp3's

they're only good for playing stuff back on shitty speakers, and for sending online because of their compressed size
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
In case you didn't catch it already.... native rate for CD is 44.1K. That's what we're talking about.

-C
Click to expand...

I think that what John meant by "native" was the same sample rate as the recorded tracks, not necessarily 44.1K. At least that is what I would suggest. Don't perform a sample rate conversion, and leave the files in the highest bit depth possible, preferably 24 bit.
 
masteringhouse said:
Don't perform a sample rate conversion, and leave the files in the highest bit depth possible, preferably 24 bit.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with converting sample rates?

Eck
 
Massive Master said:
Mis-typed there -

24-bit PCM at the *project's* native rate. However, I tend to record at the *target* rate by default anyway (as around 80% of people do).
Click to expand...



so if you're recording something to go onto a CD, you'd record at 44.1kHz?

Do you think the loss in dynamic range has a lesser impact on the audio quality than a SRC would have?



I was under the (perhaps mis-guided!) impression that computers can now calculate non-integer sample-rate conversions pretty much flawlessly. Non-integer is perhaps the wrong way to describe it, but i mean not simply devide by 2, devide by 4 etc.


Is there something I'm missing? (Just to be clear - I'm not challenging your pov - i'm trying to inform myself!)
 
I'm not going to speak for John, but my .02 on that is that whatever edge sample rate may or may not give is so slight as to be a subject of endless debate and argument amongst even the best of engineers and audiophiles. The very fact that the best in the business can't agree on the advantages of increased sample rate means that it's advantages - if any - are so slight as to be marginal and debatable. (And, BTW, those advantages have nothing to do with dynamic range; that is the juristiction of bit depth, not sample rate.)

Compare that so-marginal-as-to-be-dubious profit of increased sample rate to the definitive and quantifiable cost of sample rate conversion, even on good computers with decent algorithms, and one has to legitimately question whether the entire operation is a net gain or a net loss.

Keep it at 44.1k and use the time and brain cells it saves for more important thinks like getting the actual tracking and mixing right :).

G.
 
MessianicDreams said:
so if you're recording something to go onto a CD, you'd record at 44.1kHz?

Do you think the loss in dynamic range has a lesser impact on the audio quality than a SRC would have?
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean frequency response (dynamic range would be dictated by the word length - I *do* record in 24-bit).

As SSG mentioned, the best guys in the industry - Including the guys who actually *design* the circuitry, can't make up their minds on that one. Dan Lavry plainly states that if you can hear the difference between 44.1 and 96kHz on one of his converters, they're defective.

Admittedly - If I were recording dog whistles or something with microphones that faithfully reproduced signals well above 22.050k, through a preamp that could faithfully recreate signals well above 22.050k, through the entire chain and into an amplifier and loudspeakers that could faithfully recreate signals well above 22.050k etc., I'd probably go up to 88.2k.

But with good conversion, if you can't get 44.1 to sound absolutely stellar, jumping up to 88.2* isn't going to change anything.

In any case, don't think past the converters - A well-designed converter at 44.1 will kick a lesser converter at 96 to the curb with extreme prejudice.

* Although I do understand why some plugs will upsample on the fly in some cases to increase the accuracy *of the processing* in the high end.
 
ecktronic said:
What is wrong with converting sample rates?

Eck
Click to expand...

Eck,

The idea being that it's best to have the ME doing any SRC unless you have quality conversion on your end.

Have a listen and look at the following:
http://www.audioease.com/Pages/BarbaBatch4/Barba4SRCTest.html

and

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

In general I feel it's better to have a little margin at the top by using a higher sample rate unless you can guarantee any digital processing that you perform has a very good/steep anti-alias filter (or upsamples internally). Once you start processing the data it's not about hearing dog whistles, it's about not creating crap that you don't want in the lower more audible frequencies. If you're not going to perform any digital processing, then 44.1K should be fine.
 
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Keep it at 44.1k and use the time and brain cells it saves for more important thinks like getting the actual tracking and mixing right :).

G.
Click to expand...
I agree! Not that I have a choice at the moment - my limit is currently 24-bit/44.1 kHz.
 
Massive Master said:
Assuming you mean frequency response (dynamic range would be dictated by the word length - I *do* record in 24-bit).
Click to expand...


DUH!! sorry - my brain decided to switch of when i wrote that (man does that sound moronic what i wrote :rolleyes: )


thanks for the input!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top