avatar

weedywet

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,872 Member Since:20/01/2011

#21 [url]

Jan 22 17 4:48 PM

I know others have said they've experienced otherwise, but PERSONALLY, I've never heard any convertor box that did 96k that sounded better to me at its lower sample rates. 

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Blue Note

Tin Man

Posts: 16 Member Since:22/01/2017

#22 [url]

Jan 22 17 5:30 PM

I use 2xFs for ingest, unless I'm not doing any DSP (such as for a flat transfer to CD because the client doesn't know what's on tape), but I prefer 88.2 k to 96 k, unless for DVD-V, of course.
 
For groove cuts, the tape doesn't get digitzed, but if the master tape sounds wrong, I might dub to the ATR @ 30 ips, on 1/2", with parametric eq (all analog) in between, and then cut with the better-sounding dub on the advance deck.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gold

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,505 Member Since:27/01/2011

#24 [url]

Jan 22 17 8:01 PM

burns46824 wrote:
Will be curious to hear, after doing some SRC tests on my own, if capturing at 24/96 actually sounds better than capturing at 24/44.1 if CD is the intended release format.  Any of you done this?

The realtime D-D  SRC in the AD2 is quite good. It's impractical to use when billing by the hour but if time isn't an issue it may be all you need.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Blue Note

Tin Man

Posts: 16 Member Since:22/01/2017

#25 [url]

Jan 23 17 7:59 PM

96 always sounds subtly  "smootherized."    88.2 seems to retain the pock-marks better while banishing the LP filter to the thermosphere.  Furthermore, I use a real-time SRC (LE3000S) which has a very, straight-forward (transparent-sounding) path to 1x from 2x.   So, unless the 1x target is 48 kHz Fs, 88.2 kHz is the way to go.  (Saracon looks great for off-line use.)

Quote    Reply   
avatar

minister

Gold Finger

Posts: 572 Member Since:27/01/2011

#27 [url]

Jan 23 17 10:00 PM

Blue Note wrote:
I use 2xFs for ingest, unless I'm not doing any DSP (such as for a flat transfer to CD because the client doesn't know what's on tape), but I prefer 88.2 k to 96 k, unless for DVD-V, of course.
 
 

Is there an SRC made this Century that sounds better at 2x-->1x, as opposed to any other multiple? 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

morespaceecho

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,302 Member Since:29/01/2011

#28 [url]

Jan 24 17 9:34 AM

they all upsample to some crazy high rate first, don't they?

that said, 88.2>44.1 is one step in R8brain, 96>44.1 is three, so you save a few seconds of your time with 88.2, which i guess counts for something.
 

www.oldcolonymastering.com

morespaceecho.bandcamp.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,066 Member Since:20/01/2011

#29 [url]

Jan 24 17 10:20 AM

compasspnt wrote:


Thanks for the posts.

Just for interest, what are "pock-marks"?


Imaginary data deprivation.. you know because lower sample rates just skim over the highlights, 44.1 is the cliff notes of audio...!!  smiley: tongue

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Blue Note

Tin Man

Posts: 16 Member Since:22/01/2017

#30 [url]

Jan 25 17 4:55 AM

...what are "pock-marks"?



Micro-"flaws" in the slewing.


96 kHz Fs sounds very pure, but with that purity, a slightly alien peal is summed. Something is less "smootherized" (more uglier in an "as is" sense) when I flip back (down) to 88.2 kHz Fs. An Earthiness (refreshing) returns, while the treble stays loose. ymmv. Ain't tryin' to sway nobody... I'm sure 96 kHz looks "blameless" compared to double-44.1. I don't dispute the effect is subtle even to my ears (being the one promulgating this aesthetic, that is...).

{Notice 44.1 is "higher" than 48, in Numerology. (4 + 4 + 1 = 9, but 4 + 8 = 3 (since, 12 = 1 + 2...). And 88.2 - "higher" thusly, than 96. (i.e., 96 = 9 + 6 = 15 = 1 + 5 = (only) 6. Whereas, 88.2 = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9. It has to count, right? 0;}


Skål, Bløn Øte

Last Edited By: Blue Note Mar 1 17 3:34 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,066 Member Since:20/01/2011

#32 [url]

Jan 25 17 10:28 AM

Blue Note wrote:
Notice 44.1 is "bigger" than 48, in Numerology. (4 + 4 + 1 = 9, but 4 + 8 = 3 (since, 12 = 1 + 2...). And 88.2 - "bigger" thusly, than 96. (i.e., 96 = 9 + 6 = 15 = 1 + 5 = (only) 6. Whereas, 88.2 = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9. It has to count, right? 0;}


Skål, Bløn Øte

Ah..!  Yes, this is what my ears have been telling me the whole time..   now it all makes sense..!!!

Takk..!!!!



Quote    Reply   
avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,115 Member Since:23/10/2013

#33 [url]

Jan 25 17 10:46 AM

Blue Note wrote:
Notice 44.1 is "bigger" than 48, in Numerology. (4 + 4 + 1 = 9, but 4 + 8 = 3 (since, 12 = 1 + 2...). And 88.2 - "bigger" thusly, than 96. (i.e., 96 = 9 + 6 = 15 = 1 + 5 = (only) 6. Whereas, 88.2 = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9. 


I ran the numbers again over here.

The math does check out.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jfee

Tin Man

Posts: 32 Member Since:15/06/2011

#34 [url]

Jan 25 17 12:00 PM

For the 96/24 capture people, what's your workflow?

export 96/24 out of capture DAW -> SRC (with saracon/izotope) -> assemble ddp in sonoris (or equivalent)?

Do you monitor at 96/24 or is there real-time SRC so you're monitoring at 44/16?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

dcollins

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,343 Member Since:27/01/2011

#35 [url]

Jan 25 17 1:25 PM

I run the analog(ue) chain at 96/24, and have the option to monitor at 44k in real-time. Then I’ll either use Saracen or Izotope to get to 44/16 to put in DDP Creator

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gold

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,505 Member Since:27/01/2011

#37 [url]

Jan 25 17 1:36 PM

jfee wrote:
For the 96/24 capture people, what's your workflow?

export 96/24 out of capture DAW -> SRC (with saracon/izotope) -> assemble ddp in sonoris (or equivalent)?

Do you monitor at 96/24 or is there real-time SRC so you're monitoring at 44/16?
 

I use two instances of Sequoia on the same computer. I pitch at the native sample rate and catch at 24/96. On the catch side I monitor through the computer. The monitor DA is clocked to the capture A/D for injest. At some point I switch the catch instance to internal clock so I can monitor the different sample rates.  I assemble and write a DDP in Sequoia. Then I open it in DDP Creator, check everything and rewrite the DDP.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

hnewman

Silverado

Posts: 98 Member Since:05/02/2011

#38 [url]

Jan 31 17 4:07 PM

 
I use two instances of Sequoia on the same computer. I pitch at the native sample rate and catch at 24/96. On the catch side I monitor through the computer. The monitor DA is clocked to the capture A/D for injest. At some point I switch the catch instance to internal clock so I can monitor the different sample rates.  I assemble and write a DDP in Sequoia. Then I open it in DDP Creator, check everything and rewrite the DDP.


What do you mean by rewrite the DDP?   You don't send the Sequoia natively generated DDP for production?
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gold

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,505 Member Since:27/01/2011

#39 [url]

Jan 31 17 5:43 PM

hnewman wrote:

What do you mean by rewrite the DDP?   You don't send the Sequoia natively generated DDP for production?
 

Right, I send the one generated by DDP creator.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

hnewman

Silverado

Posts: 98 Member Since:05/02/2011

#40 [url]

Jan 31 17 5:56 PM

gold wrote:

hnewman wrote:

What do you mean by rewrite the DDP?   You don't send the Sequoia natively generated DDP for production?
 

Right, I send the one generated by DDP creator.

Do you mind sharing your reasons for this? 

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help