Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

88.2Khz to 44.1Khz

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 9:56:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,
I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.

Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?
DS

More about : 2khz 1khz

June 19, 2005 11:17:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>The difference was jaw dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes >and there is less High and Low freq.


then something is wrong someplace.

The difference should be imperceptable.


Mark
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 11:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote in message
news:1119228992.926448.255960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
> Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
> it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
> 44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
> dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
> High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.
>
> Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?
> DS

You should be doing as much work as possible at 88.2 with your sample rate
conversion as your last step before mastering for CD. I'm not a pro tools
person so I can speak for the process, but well recorded 24/88.2 should
sound great when converted to 16/44.1
Related resources
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 1:35:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< You should be doing as much work as possible at 88.2 with your
sample rate
conversion as your last step before mastering for CD. >>

I agree. Stay at the high res. rate through mixing if possible and only
downsize after it's mixed and stored at as high a rate as the original
resolution...... You may want a hi-res. release in the future.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 2:49:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> then something is wrong someplace.
>
> The difference should be imperceptable.
>
>
> Mark
>
The Nyquist theorem says the same..... there should be no audible
difference.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6/19/05 8:56 PM, in article
1119228992.926448.255960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "studiorat"
<daveslevin@02.ie> wrote:

> Hi,
> I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
> Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
> it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
> 44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
> dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
> High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.
>
> Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?
> DS
>

Something is indeed very wrong here.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 9:47:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"24/96_Believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...

> << You should be doing as much work as possible at 88.2 with your
> sample rate conversion as your last step before mastering for CD. >>

> I agree. Stay at the high res. rate through mixing if possible and only
> downsize after it's mixed and stored at as high a rate as the original
> resolution...... You may want a hi-res. release in the future.

I'll chime in with a third.

;-)
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 10:38:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:QLste.12462$kj5.7742@trnddc03...
>
> "24/96_Believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>
> > << You should be doing as much work as possible at 88.2 with your
> > sample rate conversion as your last step before mastering for CD. >>
>
> > I agree. Stay at the high res. rate through mixing if possible and only
> > downsize after it's mixed and stored at as high a rate as the original
> > resolution...... You may want a hi-res. release in the future.
>
> I'll chime in with a third.

I'll fourth that, and add that I wouldn't be surprised if your software
buggered something up when it imported the 88.2kHz signal into a 44.1kHz
project.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 11:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

studiorat wrote:
> Hi,
> I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir
and
> Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to
44.1Khz to
> edit it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by
importing tracks
> into a 44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The
difference was jaw
> dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and
there is less
> High and Low freq.

Then, there is something very wrong. I've done a lot of
24/96 recording and found zero audible difference when
properly downsampled. Please listen to samples you can
download from the following web page:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

IME the key is proper level matching, good time
synchronization, and bias-controlled listening tests. All
the tools you need for doing the later are on the site's
home page. As much as you need is free.

>I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.

I used no console at all, just high quality mics, mic
preamps, and monitors.

Use your monitors with my samples!

> Is there a better way to do the SRC ?

I don't know much about Pro Tools. I used Adobe
Audition/Cool Edit to do the samples at the web site.

> I'm going to mix it in the box?

Is there any other way that makes sense?
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 11:43:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My Last Sigh wrote:
>> then something is wrong someplace.
>>
>> The difference should be imperceptable.


> The Nyquist theorem says the same..... there should be no
audible
> difference.

How is Nyquist's theorum relevant to a question about
audibility of high sample rates?
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 1:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My Last Sigh wrote:
>>then something is wrong someplace.
>>
>>The difference should be imperceptable.
>>
>>
>>Mark
>>
>
> The Nyquist theorem says the same..... there should be no audible
> difference.

So much for specs, eh?
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 1:58:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <I7CdnWqWHoLbsSvfRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
Charles Tomaras <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote:
>
>"studiorat" <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote in message
>news:1119228992.926448.255960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>> I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
>> Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
>> it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
>> 44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
>> dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
>> High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.
>>
>> Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?
>> DS
>
>You should be doing as much work as possible at 88.2 with your sample rate
>conversion as your last step before mastering for CD. I'm not a pro tools
>person so I can speak for the process, but well recorded 24/88.2 should
>sound great when converted to 16/44.1

I agree.. you shouldn't hear much at all when you go through the SRC
process, and if you do I would immediately suspect a software problem.

You can always just deliver an 88.2 tape to the mastering house and let
THEM worry about it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
June 20, 2005 2:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:QLste.12462$kj5.7742@trnddc03...
>
>>"24/96_Believer" <vinylbeliever@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>><< You should be doing as much work as possible at 88.2 with your
>>>sample rate conversion as your last step before mastering for CD. >>
>>
>>>I agree. Stay at the high res. rate through mixing if possible and only
>>>downsize after it's mixed and stored at as high a rate as the original
>>>resolution...... You may want a hi-res. release in the future.
>>
>>I'll chime in with a third.
>
>
> I'll fourth that, and add that I wouldn't be surprised if your software
> buggered something up when it imported the 88.2kHz signal into a 44.1kHz
> project.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>


I'll fifth it. The drop to 44.1 from double that will sound different
IMO - not to the degree reported - that's likely to be something in the
software. Try to find the resample option instead of importing, as there
may be a difference in the way these are handled (importing is often the
quick and dirty method, but to maintain quality, you need to resample
properly which will take longer)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond this point, this post is going to jump up and down about the
statement that the difference between 88.2 and 44.1KHz sampling rate is
inaudible, so stop here if you don't want to hear it.

BTW - the Nyquist theorem (or at least the version I read) merely gives
the sample rate needed to record high frequency sounds. The 44.1Khz is
the rate set by the original CD audio standard (as I remember due to the
amount of data that could be written to a CD at the time, and the
accepted common length for a Long play album), and as far as I know has
nothing to do with Nyquist.

44.1KHz is too low IMO, as it means 22,050Hz is the highest frequency
component it can contain. The theory behind this is that *most* people
cannot hear frequencies above about 16-20KHz. All well and good (and for
me the theory holds - I hear to about 18.5KHz), but my wife hears right
up to about 23KHz or so.

The trouble also comes in the fact that music is not all based on
hearing - it involves more senses - most notably touch (or the feeling
created by the sound waves hitting the body and stimulating the nerve
centers). The most obvious example of this is at the other end of the
frequency spectrum. Sub bass (below about 45-50Hz) is a frequency range
that cannot be heard by most people, but many will notice when it is
taken out.

Our understanding of the way we perceive sounds is a long long way from
complete, and is further made difficult by the fact that sound
perception is very subjective. I know lots of people who cannot hear the
difference between an MP3 encoded piece of music and a CD, but I most
certainly can (even at very high bit rates). MP3 compression (or the
lossy component of it) is based around theories that are usually
presented as established fact, but are really (like the very high
frequencies being inaudible theory) only statistically very common in
humans.

Another example: Joint stereo (another technique used in MP3 encoding).
It is based around the fact that most people perceive bass in a
non-directional manner due to the spherical dispersion pattern. Highly
suspect IMO, but again most people won't notice a bass coded in mono,
and happily listen to stereo material on systems with a single bass
source. It drives me mad, as I can hear how the stereo image of the
sound source is being mangled (probably due to lots of concentrated
listening for it while setting up stereo image for live bands).

For any musician, I would recommend (as somebody does above) using the
best sampling rate and bit depth your equipment will allow, and only
re-sampling to CD quality when you put it on CD. You can easily sample
to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
enough...:-)

Anyhow, rant over. Sorry if I bored anyone, but at least I warned you
before I did it...:-)

Cheers

Leo
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 4:55:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> You did something wrong. As previously suggested, do all the editing at
> 88.2kHz except for Normalizing, then convert to 44.1kHz and then Normalize if
> you wish.
Thanks for all your comments.
Though I'd prefer a decent limiter that normalizing, take 2 or 3 dB off
the dynamic range...
Guess there is a better way to SRC then... My new problem is that my
puny G4 won't even open the sessions cause there are about an hours
worth of takes on each session. Guess it's time for a new protools rig,
been comin' this long time.
The 44.1Khz sample rate sounds like I though it would it's just that
the 88.2 sounds the buisness. I wolud prefer to stay at the higher
rate, guess I will be now...

By the way it's Mozarts 250th year in 2006, so all you location choir
type guys should be printin' up those business cards... MASSES
AHOY!!!FISH, SHOOTING, BARREL...
DS
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:14:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The key here is a setting in the Pro Tools preferences regarding the
SRC algorithm used for import. Check the preferences and change it to
Tweak Head.

However, you should probably be mixing at the native rate of the audio
files (88.2 in this case) and send your M.E. an 88.2 bounce.

If you aren't using an M.E. or plan on self mastering with PT, bounce
to 44.1 when done with mixing and most of the "sweetening". Then
import that 44.1 bounce into a 44.1/24 bit session for final dithering
down to 16 bit for CD.

Cheers,
Chris

studiorat wrote:
> Hi,
> I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
> Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
> it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
> 44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
> dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
> High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.
>
> Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?
> DS
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:17:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leonid, 192 kHz (sample rate) is not the same as 192 kbs (bitrate).

For whoever is thinking that 192 is better than 96 or 88.2, check out
Dan Lavry's white papers. 192 is well beyond the point of diminishing
returns for pcm audio, and scientifically should be less pleasing to
the ears than 96 or 88.2 for some extraordinarily convincing technical
reasons. Of course, let your ears be the judge, but being well
informed about these issues only aids an engineer in my opinion.

-Chris

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> Leo <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
> : to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
> : with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
> : enough...:-)
>
> I do NOT think 192kbs is high enough. I have 75 minute video material that I
> recorded from VHS that I want to fit on DVD. I'm now thinking whether I should
> use LPCM uncompressed audio and sacrifice video bit rate to 6mbs. Or should I
> use mp2 at 384kbs or ac3 at 448kbs and have video encoded at 8mbs. Because it
> is VHS, the sound quality isn't that great to begin with, but still I hear the
> tiny difference between mp2 at 384kbs (encoded with tooLame) and the
> uncompressed WAV file. I haven't tested the ac3 yet as I don't have ac3 player.
> But 192kbs wouldn't be even an option.
>
> --Leonid
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6/20/05 6:19 AM, in article 0Lwte.59121$KJ7.33065@fe10.news.easynews.com,
"Leo" <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll fifth it. The drop to 44.1 from double that will sound different
> IMO - not to the degree reported -

Actually not at ALL as there are no A/D filter/alias issues at all, the
'conversion' is mathematically transparent (minus the top octave) and VERY
few systems OR people can reproduce/hear 20kHz and up so disountiung ONLY
the ability to understand ANY possible missing IM interaction from the upper
end (REEEEEEEAL unlikely) you should hear NO real difference at all in the
down-conversion... Not'subtle', 'character,'imaging'.. NONE of that if it's
done right.


(regretably SNIP a darned DCENT summation of perception and What's Important
in sound recording/playback)

> For any musician, I would recommend (as somebody does above) using the
> best sampling rate and bit depth your equipment will allow, and only
> re-sampling to CD quality when you put it on CD. You can easily sample
> to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
> with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
> enough...:-)
>
> Anyhow, rant over. Sorry if I bored anyone, but at least I warned you
> before I did it...:-)

Not rant... Not 'too long' and consieing how coherently incorpoarted all
theissues were, dang hard to argue... And if I read you right, you sure
didin;t say "44.16 Sux!"
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 7:37:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6/20/05 9:58 AM, in article d96i1l$4bd$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> you shouldn't hear much at all when you go through the SRC
> process, and if you do I would immediately suspect a software problem.
>
> You can always just deliver an 88.2 tape to the mastering house and let
> THEM worry about it.

Wouldn;t that assume that said 'mastering' house knows what the heck THEY
are doing?
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 8:04:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:37:22 +0000, SSJVCmag wrote:

> On 6/20/05 9:58 AM, in article d96i1l$4bd$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott
> Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> You can always just deliver an 88.2 tape to the mastering house and let
>> THEM worry about it.
>
> Wouldn;t that assume that said 'mastering' house knows what the heck THEY
> are doing?

If they don't you'd best find a different mastering house.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 9:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

studiorat <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote:
: I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
: Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
: it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
: 44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
: dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
: High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.

: Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?

You did something wrong. As previously suggested, do all the editing at
88.2kHz except for Normalizing, then convert to 44.1kHz and then Normalize if
you wish.

For sampling rate conversion I recommend using the freeware called SSRC.exe.
Look on google. If you can't find it, shoot me email at leonid underscore
makarovsky at yahoo period com. (don't e-mail to venom...), I can point you
where to get it.

--Leonid
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 10:27:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d96tnf$cbm$2@news3.bu.edu> venom@csa3.bu.edu writes:

> You did something wrong. As previously suggested, do all the editing at
> 88.2kHz except for Normalizing, then convert to 44.1kHz and then Normalize if
> you wish.

That might be the preferred procedure, but if he preferred to do his
editing at 44.1 kHz (perhaps because he was using software or hardware
that didn't support higher sample rates) the conversion shouldn't be
that bad. Either we have another Vinyl-24/96 sock puppet here or there
was something wrong with the sample rate conversion process.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:55:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

studiorat <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote:
: Though I'd prefer a decent limiter that normalizing, take 2 or 3 dB off
: the dynamic range...

It's up to you whether you want to normalize or not, but people on this news
group once suggested me to resample first, and then normalize.

: Guess there is a better way to SRC then... My new problem is that my

Get this ssrc converter from here:
http://shibatch.sourceforge.net/
Look under section #2:
"A fast and high quality sampling rate converter"

I don't think it's graphical. All you need to do is to run it in command
prompt specifying an input file, an output file and the sampling rate and
other options (I specify 2 pass). Do ssrc.exe --help, and it will tell you all
the options available.

This converter is rated as the best available around.

I converted from 44.1kHz to 48kHz and I honestly couldn't hear any difference.

--Leonid
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:13:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leo <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
: to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
: with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
: enough...:-)

I do NOT think 192kbs is high enough. I have 75 minute video material that I
recorded from VHS that I want to fit on DVD. I'm now thinking whether I should
use LPCM uncompressed audio and sacrifice video bit rate to 6mbs. Or should I
use mp2 at 384kbs or ac3 at 448kbs and have video encoded at 8mbs. Because it
is VHS, the sound quality isn't that great to begin with, but still I hear the
tiny difference between mp2 at 384kbs (encoded with tooLame) and the
uncompressed WAV file. I haven't tested the ac3 yet as I don't have ac3 player.
But 192kbs wouldn't be even an option.

--Leonid
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:13:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@csa3.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:D 97bhb$mrl$2@news3.bu.edu...
>Because it
> is VHS, the sound quality isn't that great to begin with, but still I hear
> the
> tiny difference between mp2 at 384kbs (encoded with tooLame) and the
> uncompressed WAV file.

Please give us a break. Do some double blind testing and get back to me.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 2:14:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6/20/05 12:04 PM, in article pan.2005.06.20.16.04.41.226800@control.gov,
"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:37:22 +0000, SSJVCmag wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/05 9:58 AM, in article d96i1l$4bd$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott
>> Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>> You can always just deliver an 88.2 tape to the mastering house and let
>>> THEM worry about it.
>>
>> Wouldn;t that assume that said 'mastering' house knows what the heck THEY
>> are doing?
>
> If they don't you'd best find a different mastering house.

My point...
Many don;t have a CLUe what a proper mastering place does, cares about and
is CAPABLE of, and thus with every other 'studio' with a CD burner
sharpie-ing '... AND MASTERING' onto the shingle, how DOES the Average
Artist know?
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 2:14:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>My point...
>Many don;t have a CLUe what a proper mastering place does, cares about and
>is CAPABLE of, and thus with every other 'studio' with a CD burner
>sharpie-ing '... AND MASTERING' onto the shingle, how DOES the Average
>Artist know?

How does anybody know anything?
Please take this thread to alt.epistemology where it belongs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:21:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leonid Makarovsky <venom@csa3.bu.edu> wrote:
: Leo <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
: : to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
: : with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
: : enough...:-)

: I do NOT think 192kbs is high enough. I have 75 minute video material that I

My apology. I indeed mixed these things up - samling rate for DVD audio and
bit rate for DVD video soundtrack. Leo was talking about mp3, then jumped on
DVD Audio so I got confused. Sorry.

--Leonid
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:35:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6/20/05 7:01 PM, in article d97ht2$nkg$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>> My point...
>> Many don;t have a CLUe what a proper mastering place does, cares about and
>> is CAPABLE of, and thus with every other 'studio' with a CD burner
>> sharpie-ing '... AND MASTERING' onto the shingle, how DOES the Average
>> Artist know?
>
> How does anybody know anything?
> Please take this thread to alt.epistemology where it belongs.


Ummm ... Scott?
You OK?
I just know too many people touting MASTERING with no way of checking error
rates or much of anything else including extreme lo-end problems, and for
the average thumb-thru-the-yellow-pages artist looking for a
'polish-&-proof-my-songs' service, how's he to know whether any particular
service is indeed up to even the basics of the job? Like any service from
car repair to top end photo retouching, there might be a set of basic
vetting questions to see who has a clue...?
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:35:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>rates or much of anything else including extreme lo-end problems, and for
>the average thumb-thru-the-yellow-pages artist looking for a
>'polish-&-proof-my-songs' service, how's he to know whether any particular
>service is indeed up to even the basics of the job? Like any service from
>car repair to top end photo retouching, there might be a set of basic
>vetting questions to see who has a clue...?

Right. These people are idiots. But they aren't the only ones, because
the mixing engineers who send them business are also idiots. And the
people who hire those mixing engineers are also idiots.

They are idiots because they are paying money and not getting what they
paid for, because they don't know how to listen. And you can't just tell
people to go out and learn how to listen. They need first to care, and
most of them don't.

"If idiots stop going to market, bad wares will not be sold."
-- Ibo Proverb

Now, the question at the base of all this (which is why alt.epistemology
might be a good place for it) is how to make people WANT to learn to
listen. But most people are making music and consuming music that is
not even really intended to be carefully listened to.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:35:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6/20/05 9:08 PM, in article d97p9i$m5p$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>> rates or much of anything else including extreme lo-end problems, and for
>> the average thumb-thru-the-yellow-pages artist looking for a
>> 'polish-&-proof-my-songs' service, how's he to know whether any particular
>> service is indeed up to even the basics of the job? Like any service from
>> car repair to top end photo retouching, there might be a set of basic
>> vetting questions to see who has a clue...?
>
> Right. These people are idiots. But they aren't the only ones, because
> the mixing engineers who send them business are also idiots. And the
> people who hire those mixing engineers are also idiots.
>
> They are idiots because they are paying money and not getting what they
> paid for, because they don't know how to listen. And you can't just tell
> people to go out and learn how to listen. They need first to care, and
> most of them don't.
>
> "If idiots stop going to market, bad wares will not be sold."
> -- Ibo Proverb
>
> Now, the question at the base of all this (which is why alt.epistemology
> might be a good place for it) is how to make people WANT to learn to
> listen. But most people are making music and consuming music that is
> not even really intended to be carefully listened to.
> --scott

Whew... Can;t argue with any of it but, Man you;re being hard on folks to Be
Responsible For Themselves (and a hard dose of that has never been more
needed...). While agreeing wholeheartedly, my INTENDED direction with this
was attempting an answer to "... how to make people WANT to learn to
listen." and that answer is embodied in US HERE, Here is a dandy place I
think to do that by EDUCATING those popping in here who are stabbing out. in
various levels of ignorance. to "get my stuff mastered" and for us, as a
first line of defence to impress on them just what one does to assure a Good
Job is being done. Ignorance is what allows that ol' consumer to be taken
for a ride, to perform as if they were an idiot.
IGNORANCE is very simply cured by constant regular doses of New Information.
There is of course pointers to the Usual Education sites like Bobs Katz
Ohlsson and Orban, but maybe something treacly-memorable like a 'Top Ten
Questions to See If A Mastering House Has A Clue'?
We certainly have an easy overflowing handfull of qualified Veterans,
coupled with that there MUST be a FAQ SOMEWHERE that gets a start on this.
June 21, 2005 9:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

>
> I converted from 44.1kHz to 48kHz and I honestly couldn't hear any difference.


Should be the other way round surely. You won't hear any difference
converting from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz because sampling up will not add
anything to the sound. The information is simply not there, and all
you're doing is adding padding to the file.

48 down to 44.1. You may hear a difference though. It depends purely on
your hearing. Everybody's ears are a different shape (ear shape is
almost like a fingerprint it is so unique) and each persons ear picks up
and translates sound differently. And that is before, the sound has even
reached the decoding nerve centres in the inner ear and the brain.

SSJVCmag wrote:

> And if I read you right, you sure
> didin;t say "44.16 Sux!"
>

No, I didn't. CD quality sampling is good quality, and as I said, higher
rates will not produce a noticeable difference for most people.

I do get carried away though...:-)

Cheers

Leo
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:24:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message news:BEDC5AA7.AAD9%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
> On 6/20/05 6:19 AM, in article 0Lwte.59121$KJ7.33065@fe10.news.easynews.com,
> "Leo" <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You can easily sample
> > to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
> > with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
> > enough...:-)

> Not rant... Not 'too long' and consieing how coherently incorporated all
> the issues were, dang hard to argue...


Yeh... but DVD is a passing fad. ;-)
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:24:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
> news:BEDC5AA7.AAD9%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>> On 6/20/05 6:19 AM, in article
>> 0Lwte.59121$KJ7.33065@fe10.news.easynews.com, "Leo"
>> <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can easily sample
>>> to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which
would be a
>>> pity with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common -
192KHz should
>>> be high enough...:-)
>
>> Not rant... Not 'too long' and consieing how coherently
incorporated
>> all the issues were, dang hard to argue...

> Yeh... but DVD is a passing fad. ;-)

This statement has a surprizing potential to be completely
true. DVD-video looks like it is going to be one of the
shortest-lived commercially-sucessful consumer distribution
formats in history.

The original DVD Video format specifcation 1.0 was approved
in 1996.

DVD-Video was launched in 1997 in the USA.

The HD-DVD ROM format specification 1.0 was approved in
2004. Not quite the next version of the origional 1996 video
standard, but close.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:26:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Leonid Makarovsky" <venom@csa2.bu.edu> wrote in message news:D 97mi3$91t$1@news3.bu.edu...
> Leonid Makarovsky <venom@csa3.bu.edu> wrote:
> : Leo <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
> : : to a lower rate, but the information is then lost (which would be a pity
> : : with DVD audio hopefully becoming more common - 192KHz should be high
> : : enough...:-)
>
> : I do NOT think 192kbs is high enough. I have 75 minute video material that I
>
> My apology. I indeed mixed these things up - samling rate for DVD audio and
> bit rate for DVD video soundtrack. Leo was talking about mp3, then jumped on
> DVD Audio so I got confused. Sorry.

That's ok.... DVD is just a fad.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 12:59:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Cavell wrote:
> The key here is a setting in the Pro Tools preferences regarding the
> SRC algorithm used for import. Check the preferences and change it to
> Tweak Head.
>
> However, you should probably be mixing at the native rate of the audio
> files (88.2 in this case) and send your M.E. an 88.2 bounce.
>
> If you aren't using an M.E. or plan on self mastering with PT, bounce
> to 44.1 when done with mixing and most of the "sweetening". Then
> import that 44.1 bounce into a 44.1/24 bit session for final dithering
> down to 16 bit for CD.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> studiorat wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>I just did my first 88.2Khz session this weekend, Choir and
>>Orchestra... The thing is, I have to convert it down to 44.1Khz to edit
>>it etc. I've done it already (protoolshd3) by importing tracks into a
>>44.1Khz session from an 88.2Khz session. The difference was jaw
>>dropping... The lower rate's stereo image changes and there is less
>>High and Low freq. I was monitoring through a Yamaha DM2000.
>>
>>Is there a better way to do the SRC ? I'm going to mix it in the box?
>>DS
>
>
I know the OP wasn't very clear on this, but it seemed to me that he's
recorded something on an HD system to be mixed on a lower end (non-HD)
system. So keeping the session at 88.2 through the mix wouldn't really
be an option.
I'd say the problem was exactly that: the preferences setting was
probably down on "good" (as opposed to "better", "best", or of course
"tweak head"), but I'm amazed this thread had to get this far before
someone mentioned it. Doesn't anyone use Pro Tools anymore? :) 
Everyone seemed pretty quick to say "you're doing something very
wrong...it should sound the same...but keep it at 88.2", but there
weren't any real answers to the question asked. Funny.

Cheers,
-joe.
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:04:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leo <thealternatives@gmail.com> wrote:
>Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
>
>> I converted from 44.1kHz to 48kHz and I honestly couldn't hear any difference.
>
>Should be the other way round surely. You won't hear any difference
>converting from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz because sampling up will not add
>anything to the sound. The information is simply not there, and all
>you're doing is adding padding to the file.

Either way you shouldn't hear any difference.

>48 down to 44.1. You may hear a difference though. It depends purely on
>your hearing. Everybody's ears are a different shape (ear shape is
>almost like a fingerprint it is so unique) and each persons ear picks up
>and translates sound differently. And that is before, the sound has even
>reached the decoding nerve centres in the inner ear and the brain.

For the most part, the differences you here are going to be due to
defects in the converters. Try it. With a good quality converter you
won't hear any difference at all. With an SV3700 you'll hear major
differences.

A tiny amount of additional extension above 20 KHz is not a big deal.
Converter differences can be a big deal.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 2:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <BEDD0346.AC26%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com writes:

> my INTENDED direction with this
> was attempting an answer to "... how to make people WANT to learn to
> listen." and that answer is embodied in US HERE, Here is a dandy place I
> think to do that by EDUCATING those popping in here who are stabbing out.

I think it's a matter of impatience. People want the quickest way to
get their projects recorded. The want faster disk drives because they
don't want to wait any longer than necessary to make backups (or they
make no backups at all). They want to be told where to place the
microphones so they don't have to take the time to experiment. They
don't want to learn to play their instruments or sing the part right
because they have Drumagog and Sound Replacer.

And of course since they've done all the hard work, "mastering" should
be quick and easy. Why not just do it themselves, or pick the cheapest
place off the net.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> : Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> : Should be the other way round surely. You won't hear any difference
> : converting from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz
>
> Nope. You will hear the difference if you upconvert and most likely you won't
> hear the big difference if you downconvert to a reasanable sampling rate.
>
> : because sampling up will not add anything to the sound. The information is
> : simply not there, and all you're doing is adding padding to the file.
>
> Apparently it introduces some distortion and clicks.

Clicks? If it's introducing clicks, something is terribly, terribly wrong
in the sample rate conversion process.

What should happen when converting from 44.1 kHz up to 48 kHz is that,
for every 147 samples in the original, you need to come up with 160
samples in the new signal.

Essentially, this is done with some form of modeling, so that you can
use the original samples to understand what the curve (that they are
samples of) must've looked like and use that to create new samples that
capture the shape of the curve just as well as the original did.

I don't know the specifics of how this is done in the audio world, but
when you resample in the graphics world, you usually end up doing it
by creating a linear combination of nearby sample values in the original,
and you choose the coefficients so that your new sample factors in mostly
the nearest sample in the original, but also factors in neighboring
samples in proportion to how much of a sample rate conversion you're
doing. That is, if you're cutting the sample rate in half, the
coefficients are set up so that most of the information for a new
sample comes from about 2 samples in the original.

In practice, there are all kinds of tricky things to worry about when
doing this. For one thing, if the size of your aperture (the window
of samples in the source that you're looking at) is too large, this
tends to average in too many samples and produces blur, a/k/a a
low-pass filter. But if you make the aperture too small, you tend
to introduce other kinds of artifacts and the output looks grainy.

In the audio world, there are corresponding problems. There WILL
be error and loss of information, since you are converting a set of
integers to another set of integers in a way that requires you to
round numbers. But, if everything is done properly so that the
error is minimized (and so that it's created in a way that sounds
best, i.e. not concentrated at a single frequency or anything), then
the error will be very, very hard to hear. You certainly shouldn't
hear audible distortion or any kind of click. The error should, at
worst, be a case of having the least significant bit wrong just a
few cases. In other words, it shouldn't add more than a few dB of
noise.

Of course, the above only applies to up-converting. If you down-convert,
and if the original has content above the Nyquist frequency, then of
course you will lose that information. It's impossible to represent
at the lower sample rate, so there's no possible way to preserve it.

- Logan
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:29:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
: Clicks? If it's introducing clicks, something is terribly, terribly wrong
: in the sample rate conversion process.


Actually, not as many clicks, but the sound lost the frequency range, i.e.
less high freq response, and less low freq response.

--Leonid
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 10:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> : Clicks? If it's introducing clicks, something is terribly, terribly wrong
> : in the sample rate conversion process.
>
>
> Actually, not as many clicks, but the sound lost the frequency range, i.e.
> less high freq response, and less low freq response.

If you are slowing it down, you will naturally leave a gap
at the high end. Some LF can be pushed down to become
inaudible but that would usually not yield a perception of
lost because other stuff will be pushed down to replace it.
Sounds like bad software.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Logan Shaw wrote:
> Essentially, this is done with some form of modeling, so that you can
> use the original samples to understand what the curve (that they are
> samples of) must've looked like and use that to create new samples that
> capture the shape of the curve just as well as the original did.
[and then...]
> Of course, the above only applies to up-converting. If you down-convert,
> and if the original has content above the Nyquist frequency, then of
> course you will lose that information.

Converting up and converting down is all about digital low pass
filtering. In either case you filter with a sharp cut off at half the
lower of the two sampling rates and you have all the information you
need (i.e the waveform modeling you derscribe is done by the filtering).
It's been well understood for years.

Yes, when you downsample you lose information, but only all the content
at frequencies above the Nyquist frequency at the output rate. The only
other thing that you can't avoid is rounding errors, such as you get
from any processing. There should be nothing more to it than that.
(that's all if it's done properly)

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I was getting clicks and distortion when I was slowing the material down
without preserving pitch - just extending a wav file. It can also be achieved
by setting the sampling rate to lower rate and then upconverting to the
original sampling rate. For example the 44.1kHz is set to 40kHz and then
upsampled back to 44.1kHz. But I'm not sure that is what GW was doing.

--Leonid
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:21:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:
> I was getting clicks and distortion when I was slowing the material down
> without preserving pitch

Bad software.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,
It's more a question of depth and perspective and clarity, It defnitly
handles the choir better. I'll be using higher sample rates whenever
possible from now on though.
No bats in the family, a few in the belfry though.

Keep it Country
-DS
June 23, 2005 6:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

another case of the placeb-audio effect.

Mark
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:25:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

studiorat wrote:


> It's more a question of depth and perspective and clarity,

The differences between 44.1 and anything higher is at best
extremely subtle. People who perceive big difference like
this are almost always perceiving them because either the
downsampling was done badly, or their comparitive listening
evaluation was done badly.

>It defnitly handles the choir better.

I've done many choir recordings and, well no.

>I'll be using higher sample rates whenever
> possible from now on though.

Waste the disk space and your time as you will.

> No bats in the family, a few in the belfry though.

You said it, I didn't.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:25:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>It defnitly handles the choir better.
>
>
> I've done many choir recordings and, well no.



Well, as you continually point out, age and all...

You are, after all an old coot.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:40:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> It defnitly handles the choir better.
>>
>>
>> I've done many choir recordings and, well no.

> Well, as you continually point out, age and all...

No, I'm talking about DBTs done by people far younger than
I.
!