The Upsampling Your Mix Thread

[bduffy]

Carrying on an OT discussion from here about exporting your mix at a higher sample rate like 96 or 192khz, even if you were working at 44k or 48k, in order to oversample your mix and get a higher quality master.

Dayl, Aduiomove and r8brain are really, really well-made sample rate converters that offer super-high quality algorithms for processing samples. I don't know the science, per se, but let's just say your host ain't the last word on sample rate conversion!

I'm listening to two bouncedowns I made of my last mix; one at 44-32 and one exported from Cubase at 96khz, then upsampled to 192khz in Audiomove. In headphones, the difference doesn't seem that obvious to me...but I need to try the final master/conversion thing, like dusted william suggested.

[Dayl]

Nice, so far the obvious thing for me to do is start working with 44/32 as I currently
work (by default) in 44/32.

I have never tried the 96 option either.

And what does 32bit float mean anyway?

So would r8brain and audiomove somehow sweeten (for lack of a better word) the sample when changing bitrate or (edit) mainly samplerate?

[bduffy]

Nice, so far the obvious thing for me to do is start working with 44/32 as I currently
work (by default) in 44/32.

Sorry - you're working at 44/32, so you should start working at 44/32? I would suggest working higher than that, at least 88/32. My next album, I'm doing it all at the highest my computer can handle. Mine eyes have seen the light.

I have never tried the 96 option either.

And what does 32bit float mean anyway?

Basically, it just means you have a nice, plentiful amount of numbers to 'describe' your audio. It also means there is virtually no limit on headroom, so with 96/32 files, your interface is sampling your incoming audio 96,000 times per second, with 32-bits to describe. It's beautiful, really, when compared to 44/16.

So would r8brain and audiomove somehow sweeten (for lack of a better word) the sample when changing bitrate of mainly samplerate?

Well, I thought high-quality SRC's were just for making the most perfect copy of your audio as possible, but if you read the webpage for r8brain Pro, it offers non-linear phase conversion, which is supposed to offer analog-to-digital conversion that would resemble the hardware world, where you would have some small, desirable coloration introduced. At least that's how I understand it. This is all a little new-ish to me too.

[semiquaver]

bduffy - nothing is gained by upsampling a mix *after* rendering. on the contrary its destructive. Where you gain is by upsampling before effects (so that the effects work better) then downsampling after.

[bduffy]

bduffy - nothing is gained by upsampling a mix *after* rendering. on the contrary its destructive. Where you gain is by upsampling before effects (so that the effects work better) then downsampling after.

Yes, this is where I'm losing dusted william a bit: I fully understand this:

Project = 44/32
Bounce down = 96/32

But he was saying he upsamples that to 192khz, so the editor can do even better processing. Does that sound kosher? I too am concerned about overprocessing.

[Rellik]

perhaps the best option is to keep mixing and composition/production separate - do all your composition, arranging, and sound design at a reasonable samplerate, then export to 96kHz audio and do your mixing (and most likely mastering if you're like most of us), then export THAT to your standard 44.1khz 24-bit/16-bit/whatever you need final product.

[bduffy]

perhaps the best option is to keep mixing and composition/production separate - do all your composition, arranging, and sound design at a reasonable samplerate, then export to 96kHz audio and do your mixing (and most likely mastering if you're like most of us), then export THAT to your standard 44.1khz 24-bit/16-bit/whatever you need final product.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Too late for this album, I'd be throwing away a year of mixing if I went back and resampled everything, and some of these songs have been processed a million times. But definitely I'll do that now.

[kylen]

But he was saying he upsamples that to 192khz, so the editor can do even better processing. Does that sound kosher? I too am concerned about overprocessing.

I just tried working at 96KHz again this weekend and I think it'll be ok on my new PentiumM laptop (new for me that is). I'm remastering so I've only got 2 tracks but it's an M-S split and I've got 3 ozones, 2 sonalksis 315 mono comps's, 2 masterQ's, etc. I'm just about max'd out cpu wise in Tracktion2 without freezing anything - I'd rather not do that. I don't think 192KHz is possible, I like to hear what I'm doing in real time anyway. Effects do sound better up here at 96KHz as I remember last time I tried it. Thanks for the reminder this week from Kingston and youse guys...

[Dayl]

Nice, so far the obvious thing for me to do is start working with 44/32 as I currently
work (by default) in 44/32.

Sorry mate, yeah I meant 44/16

[bduffy]

Nice, so far the obvious thing for me to do is start working with 44/32 as I currently
work (by default) in 44/32.

Sorry mate, yeah I meant 44/16

Dude. Ditch the 16 ASAP! Or do like Rellik suggested; compose/sketch in 16-bit, then do it proper at higher quality when you're ready to mix.

[bduffy]

But he was saying he upsamples that to 192khz, so the editor can do even better processing. Does that sound kosher? I too am concerned about overprocessing.

I just tried working at 96KHz again this weekend and I think it'll be ok on my new PentiumM laptop (new for me that is). I'm remastering so I've only got 2 tracks but it's an M-S split and I've got 3 ozones, 2 sonalksis 315 mono comps's, 2 masterQ's, etc. I'm just about max'd out cpu wise in Tracktion2 without freezing anything - I'd rather not do that. I don't think 192KHz is possible, I like to hear what I'm doing in real time anyway. Effects do sound better up here at 96KHz as I remember last time I tried it. Thanks for the reminder this week from Kingston and youse guys...

Yeah, man, just when I think I got it all figured out..now I know why everyone's using these higher sample rates...

Oh, and that's some crazy frikkin' setup you got going on there! CPU DEATH!

[Shy]

I still haven't seen one sample. I've only seen placebo heaven from you people.

[camsr]

Well maybe thats because you dont SEE music

[bduffy]

Shy, you don't have to be a dick about it. You know, it takes awhile to bounce, convert and master an entire song at high sample rate.

Sascha said he'd provide something in the morning, I'm working on it right now.

[Shy]

Well maybe thats because you dont SEE music

A rephrasing then, "I still haven't seen one sample posted from you people." Yes, I intend to hear the samples, not look at them.