But I have no doubts that the future standard will be 96/24 at least, so I keep and make these masters at that samplerate and bitdepth, to be future proof.
Cheers!
Ponomusic
-
- KVRAF
- 3828 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from Underworld
I get your point sonicpowa and absolutely agree, but most of the players support only to 48k only so 48k is our best bet and if you use a great samplerate converter like R8Brain or SoX there's really not much loss in downsampling and aliasing is kept at the minimum. I also make everything at 96k/24bit for the last ~4 years and keep and backup the masters in that format and when someone needs any other format like 48k/24bit it's easy to oblige. And really, there is not much loss. I personally can't tell the difference in a blind test between something that is originally made in 96k and the downsampled version to 48k of it.
But I have no doubts that the future standard will be 96/24 at least, so I keep and make these masters at that samplerate and bitdepth, to be future proof.
Cheers!
But I have no doubts that the future standard will be 96/24 at least, so I keep and make these masters at that samplerate and bitdepth, to be future proof.
Cheers!
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti
-
- KVRian
- 1265 posts since 3 Jul, 2009
I haven´t tested it yet but SonicIllusions FinalCD is said to be the same quality as iZotope SRC or even better. And it´s free !!DuX wrote:--great samplerate converter like R8Brain or SoX there's really not much loss in downsampling and aliasing is kept at the minimum.
-
- KVRAF
- 3828 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from Underworld
This is interesting, sonicpowa. Thank you! I will test it.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti
-
- KVRAF
- 10359 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
Sox (for up sampling) + FinalCD (for down sampling) = best SRC solution on he planet. IMHO it beats iZotope SRC (I have RX Advanced v3 at the studio to compare with).
So yeah, the free but clunky software is better quality wise than anything else on the market today.
Sample rate conversion is one area where there is absolutely no need to pay top dollar. The only benefit with RX Advanced SRC in this case is the interface and handy batch conversion (and it's overall speed of processing). So if you are doing a lot of files then RX Advanced or R8brain pro are a must.
Cheers!
bManic
So yeah, the free but clunky software is better quality wise than anything else on the market today.
Sample rate conversion is one area where there is absolutely no need to pay top dollar. The only benefit with RX Advanced SRC in this case is the interface and handy batch conversion (and it's overall speed of processing). So if you are doing a lot of files then RX Advanced or R8brain pro are a must.
Cheers!
bManic
"Wisdom is wisdom, regardless of the idiot who said it." -an idiot
-
- KVRAF
- 10359 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
This is my philosophy as well. I keep everything at 96kHz 32bit float as archiving format (and I personally mix and work at 96kHz as well) due to the benefits you get when doing digital processing.. especially the more complex plugins like Slate VTM and such do really benefit from the higher sample rates. Next time I upgrade the computer I might even be switching to 192kHz for the mastering stage, just to get the benefits of 4x oversampling natively and then just doing 1 single down sampling pass. Not sure how many plugins work at 192kHz though. There may be quite a few that don't work properly.. like Nebula for instance, which I am very much dependent on!DuX wrote:I get your point sonicpowa and absolutely agree, but most of the players support only to 48k only so 48k is our best bet and if you use a great samplerate converter like R8Brain or SoX there's really not much loss in downsampling and aliasing is kept at the minimum. I also make everything at 96k/24bit for the last ~4 years and keep and backup the masters in that format and when someone needs any other format like 48k/24bit it's easy to oblige. And really, there is not much loss. I personally can't tell the difference in a blind test between something that is originally made in 96k and the downsampled version to 48k of it.
But I have no doubts that the future standard will be 96/24 at least, so I keep and make these masters at that samplerate and bitdepth, to be future proof.
Cheers!
"Wisdom is wisdom, regardless of the idiot who said it." -an idiot
-
- KVRAF
- 2374 posts since 16 Jan, 2013
I can understand the train of thought that the heavily compressed lossy music we all listen to now on our phones and mp3 players isn't as good as the old days of vinyl, but I just don't see the hole this is trying to fill.
Assuming most people are going to be listening to their music on the move (in their car, on foot etc) are they really going to notice the difference going to 192khz? Considering it's going to be going through your average in-car system or earbuds.
I listen to flac here all the time, but when I'm out and about I convert it all down to 0.5q AAC for my phone. And picky as I am with my resolution at home, it sounds fine to me.
I just wish someone along the way had taken up laserdisc as an audio format. That way we'd get the nice big gatefold covers, but also pristine digital audio with none of the snap crackle and pop.
Assuming most people are going to be listening to their music on the move (in their car, on foot etc) are they really going to notice the difference going to 192khz? Considering it's going to be going through your average in-car system or earbuds.
I listen to flac here all the time, but when I'm out and about I convert it all down to 0.5q AAC for my phone. And picky as I am with my resolution at home, it sounds fine to me.
I just wish someone along the way had taken up laserdisc as an audio format. That way we'd get the nice big gatefold covers, but also pristine digital audio with none of the snap crackle and pop.
-
- KVRian
- 773 posts since 23 Apr, 2002 from audio/hamburg/germany/earth/space/unkown!
-
- KVRAF
- 3828 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from Underworld
Great video, dasdeck. Thank you for posting it.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti
-
- KVRAF
- 35410 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
+1nathanj wrote:Personally, I find this to be misguided. This is just a continuation of the hi-fi rhetoric that has fueled stereo system sales for the last 100 years. The idea that the device becomes transparent is utterly ridiculous. There is no way you can notice the difference between a 320k mp3 and this on a regular set of headphones, especially when you are out walking. if you think you can tell the difference, good for you.
I don't doubt that on a good stereo system this will sound better than mp3s, but as a portable device it is utterly useless. if only we all had neil's car stereo...
Marketing gaga.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
The fella makes good points. It is ludicrous to open a song in an editor program and see a flat-line waveform overview, front to back.
Still, maybe audio that isn't fairly seriously squashed (just not ridiculously squashed), would lose in the marketplace. When people would listen to the radio in the car, on the beach, at work, high noise environments-- If the music wasn't squashed on the original records or CD's, then you could be sure the radio station would squash the bejeezus out of it before squirting it into the aether.
When iPods replace the radio station for so many folks, if the MP3's on the iPods are not fairly well squashed, then they don't work in noisy environments. Turn up the player loud enough to hear that quiet ppp solo flute, then blow out yer ears on the fff full orchestra sections. Or turn down so the fff parts are tolerable, but then you can't hear the flute solo at all.
Nowadays, wonder how small a percentage of recreational listening is done in environments such as quiet living room, where it is possible to enjoy music that isn't at least somewhat squashed?
In addition, if you release a nice hifi song that "fills the dynamic range of the medium" but is so quiet that the listener has to reach over and turn up the player to hear it properly, and then jump and turn down the player when the next song blasts him out-- The user too lazy to constantly ride the volume knob might not appreciate un-squashed product.
Just wondering, if those pono tunes really do get released un-squashed, then maybe even some of the people raving about the improved fidelity in the promo video-- They may change their minds when they listen in noisy environments and either have to tolerate the loud parts being too loud, or tolerate the quiet parts being inaudible, or constantly riding the volume control while listening.
