|
|
|
04-08-2009, 12:44 AM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
|
Record 192Khz 32Bit Render 44,1Khz 16Bit
Im Record 8 Track 192Khz 32Bit with Reawerb and Reacomp, render to 44,1Khz 16Bit. 0.3*Raltime. The reverb is in The rendered Mix not ok. I have AMD 64 4800 Dualcore, Nforce 3 Chipset.
|
|
|
04-08-2009, 01:12 AM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
|
try rendering out to 192khz/32bit
then import the output files into a new session and resample down to 44khz there
high quality resampling is a very slow operation
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 01:23 AM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
|
192Khz Render 44,1Khz
The Reawerb is not Ok in The final file of 44,1Khz 16Bit. Wen i render 192Khz 24Bit is OK? Modul Konflikt. Im Reasample 512PT. 0,3*Realtime is not normal.
R.Wunderlin
Last edited by 78bakalit; 04-22-2009 at 01:25 AM.
|
|
|
04-22-2009, 05:57 AM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
|
512pt is NON-REALTIME: very very slow.
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 10:21 AM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 99
|
Why record at such a high sample rate?
If your target is CD anyway, then I would record at 44.1KHz, that avoids a lot of problems and has no hit on the 'quality', which is more reliant on the bit depth than the sample rate.
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 10:58 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: the Bay
Posts: 701
|
Speaking for myself, I record higher to put onto vinyl. But for client approval mixes, I still need to get down to 44.1 or 48khz. I don't go as high as 192, just 96kHz.
78bakalit, what reverb are you using?
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 11:02 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by darjama
Speaking for myself, I record higher to put onto vinyl. But for client approval mixes, I still need to get down to 44.1 or 48khz. I don't go as high as 192, just 96kHz.
78bakalit, what reverb are you using?
|
Oh, yes, sure, vinyl! Ever looked at the frequency response of a vinyl record in the last song on a LP? Are you recoring in 12 bit then to meet the low SNR as well? Or quasi mono becuse of the 48 dB cross-talk on the stereo channels?
__________________
------------------------------------------
Don't read this sentence to it's end, please.
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 11:59 AM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: the Bay
Posts: 701
|
I'm no vinyl evangelist -- I haven't owned a turntable in 20 years -- but people feel that you don't have the same depth of field at 44.1kHz. And in terms of noise floor, the real world difference isn't as great as the stats for CDs lead you to believe.
And you try telling a band that you're going to create the lacquer master from an audio CD.
Anyway, back on topic. I missed it in your post, you menitoned that you're using Reaverb. Does reasampling at a faster setting change anything? It might help isolate the problem. But dub3000 has the right idea if you need to get it done. Render at 192, then resample.
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 05:48 PM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 99
|
[QUOTE=darjama;309689]....people feel that you don't have the same depth of field at 44.1kHz. And in terms of noise floor, the real world difference isn't as great as the stats for CDs lead you to believe.[(quote]
What 'people' feel and what can be proved through measurement are quite different things. Please define 'depth of field'.
Best signal:noise ratio (which, effectively, defines the noise floor) of an LP is some 50dB. A CD easily beats this figure (96dB).
Quote:
Originally Posted by darjama
And you try telling a band that you're going to create the lacquer master from an audio CD.
|
Then don't. Why pander to their unqualified preconceptions?
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 06:26 PM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,955
|
going further off-topic, but whatever: i really think that 44khz/16bit has a bad reputation because of a combination of:
* most consumer-grade DACs are horrible (i've had a couple of cd players that really do sound awful - like, really quite audibly horrible)
* cds are mastered louder than vinyl
i'd love to be proven otherwise though but in the meantime i'm just doing all my stuff at 44khz/24bit...
|
|
|
04-23-2009, 06:53 PM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000
going further off-topic, but whatever: i really think that 44khz/16bit has a bad reputation because of a combination of:
* most consumer-grade DACs are horrible (i've had a couple of cd players that really do sound awful - like, really quite audibly horrible)
* cds are mastered louder than vinyl
i'd love to be proven otherwise though but in the meantime i'm just doing all my stuff at 44khz/24bit...
|
It ends up as s#$t mp3's anyway played back through Buffy and Todd's mp3 players with the 34 cent earbuds...
D - 24/44.1
|
|
|
04-24-2009, 11:01 AM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: the Bay
Posts: 701
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme
What 'people' feel and what can be proved through measurement are quite different things. Please define 'depth of field'.
Best signal:noise ratio (which, effectively, defines the noise floor) of an LP is some 50dB. A CD easily beats this figure (96dB).
|
"Depth of field" is a photography term, meaning the area of an image that's in focus. A larger depth of field means both the foreground and background are in focus. A smaller depth of field means focusing on one loses focus on the other. Yes, this is touchy-feely when you apply it to audio, but people buy based on feeling rather than measurement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme
Then don't. Why pander to their unqualified preconceptions?
|
Because the customer is always right. I can give them my opinions, but they don't have to accept them. If they think vinyl sounds better than CD, you want me to turn away their business?
Anyway, there's a certain cachet to a vinyl release. Any band can use mom's computer to duplicate a CD. But a band that is releasing vinyl is automatically afforded more credibility by club owners and press.
|
|
|
04-24-2009, 10:32 PM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 99
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by darjama
"Depth of field" is a photography term
|
I understand the term in that context - I just have a problem in translating it to audio .
Quote:
Originally Posted by darjama
Because the customer is always right. I can give them my opinions, but they don't have to accept them. If they think vinyl sounds better than CD, you want me to turn away their business?
|
I didn't say you shouldn't do it - just not to tell them. You and I both know they would never be the wiser.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 AM.
|