Samplerate for mastering - which one?

[OMU]

Hi, I have this problem in my head for some time and I would like to have a discission on this subject, maybe some of you know some things better than me.
Composing and mixing at 96kHz is a bit hard due to the cpu limitations so i think the most of us make music in 44.1 or 48k. The question was then, should I do the mixdown to a higher samplerate and use the mastering processors at this samplerate (seems logical) for having a better sound, or it is useless cause being know the fact that the music is sampled to 44.1 the software just adds zero-s to reach the desired samplerate? Cause if it is so this means that I am working at the same quality just with bigger files. But does'n the host apply all the effects etc. to the new samplerate when exporting, not just adding zero-s?
Any explanations are more than welcome

[Genja]

I think the most important thing is that you master at 24 bit instead of 16 bit. I would say that it helps to master at 96k, even if it means converting your 44.1 samples to 96k, mastering, then back down to 44.1 for burning. But it doens't make nearly as much of a differnce as the bit depth does. I think the effect of going up to 96 just for mastering would be nominal at best, but it would help.

I hope people don't scream at me for saying this.

[Left Headphone]

I think the most important thing is that you master at 24 bit instead of 16 bit. I would say that it helps to master at 96k, even if it means converting your 44.1 samples to 96k, mastering, then back down to 44.1 for burning. But it doens't make nearly as much of a differnce as the bit depth does. I think the effect of going up to 96 just for mastering would be nominal at best, but it would help.

Co-sign

[Jafo]

I'll also sign the 24-bit and 44.1/48 kHz petition, but with the caveat that many sounds really do sound better when recorded at 88.2/96 kHz, even when downsampled. In general, having more points isn't as important as having more precision with them.

[OMU]

many sounds really do sound better when recorded at 88.2/96 kHz, even when downsampled.

I agree, but I was talking about the reverse situation.
And regarding the bit depth I always mix down to 32bit

[Genja]

Do you mean that you use 32 bit processors in the mixing and mastering stage? Or are you saying that you record 32 bit audio files, and if so, what audio interface does that? I didn't know that 32 converters even existed yet, am I missing something? If you're saying you use 32 bit processors, that's the the same things. We're saying that you're audio files should be recorded at a 24 bit resolution, which is very different than the bit depth of the processing you're using. Processing is often done at 64 bit. It's very important for audio quality that you're audio files be recorded at 24 bit, and what we're saying is this is more important than using a higher sampling rate, although the higher sampling rate will also make your files marginally better as well. I think what the guy before was saying is that it's more important that you actaully record the tracks at 96k, than recording at 44 and then converting to 96k, which I couldn't see giving you much of an improvement at all, but I could be wrong. Of couse, once you master to disk, the bit depth goes back down to 16 bit and the sampling rate to 44.1. When all that processing is done, though, it's very important that you're audio files are at a 24 bit depth.

[OMU]

Genja, I can record at 32bit the virtual instruments (by exporting them at 32bit) and of course I record at 24 bit the external ones, but my question was about mastering not recording. The engine of every host I know works at 32bit (nowadays they are moving to 64, but this will take a while) so I mixdown to 32bit. Not the bit depth is the question here but the samplerate only. Anyway thanks for your feedback.

[Genja]

Not the bit depth is the question here but the samplerate only. Anyway thanks for your feedback.

Yes, and I think the point here, is that it realy doesn't make much of a difference, especially how you're doing it, recording lower then going higher for mastering, then back down again. Have you done a test to A/B the results to see if you can hear a difference?

[rawcan]

Hi OMU,

a lot of plugins do sound better at higher sample rates. Check if that's worth the extra CPU hit. If so, go ahead and master at a higher sample rate.
I did my last CD nearly entirely at 88kHz (including mastering) and it was worth it.


All the best, FRitz

P.S. Did you try to record your VSTis at a higher sample rate and then downsample them? Gives a better sound.

[Genja]

Ya but he's saying he doesn't want to record at the higher rate, he wants to record at 44 or 48 then wondering if he should convert to 96 just for mastering. It might help, but I wonder if it'll be audible. Obviously recording at the higher rate and keeping it there til the end gives you improvement, although it's still not nearly as important as bit depth.

[OMU]

yes, I did comparitions and can't say I hear the differences. That's why I asked here the question, maybe there are some things that I don't know or some people who can say they actually hear differences. Anyway, the cpu hit is quite big so it's not very comfortable working at 96k or 88.2k, and I think I'll work from now on at 44.1k or 48k until the cpu-s will grow

[rawcan]

Hi Omu,

then my only tip is this: Forget about what you don't hear and be happy.


Best wishes, FRitz

[deleted]

DELETED

[OMU]

Hi Omu,

then my only tip is this: Forget about what you don't hear and be happy.

good point

[kritikon]

I fail to see what benefit you could gain by mastering at higher than the audio you've recorded at. Going to a higher sample rate will add absolutely nothing.

If you are using FX in your mastering chain, then possibly you might get some benefits. However...reverb - the most gain you'll hear is from higher bit depth, not samplerate. Eqs - again, I fail to see what benefits are gained from higher samplerate - you're not going to add any frequencies higher than those already contained. If your audio is recorded at 48kHz, then your highest frequency captured is 24kHz and no amount of Eq is going to give you anything higher.

There is one scenario where I can logically see a benefit...if you use enhancers or tube emulations that add harmonics. Any harmonics on your highest frequencies are going to go over your samplerate limit, so 96kHz could benefit you. If you push hard with harmonics, I suppose you might actually hear aliasing if you record at 48kHz. If you don't use harmonics, then don't even waste time thinking about it.

Otherwise I don't even see it as debatable. Increasing samplerate above what's already recorded doesn't add anything apart from HD space.

Without harmonics, if you start mucking around upsampling and then downsampling, you'll more likely bugger up your master, because of mathematical rounding or errors.

All the talk of VSTi sound being better at 96kHz is irrelevant...you stated you record at 48kHz. If this guy records at 48kHz, he could upsample to 768kHz and it'll sound exactly the same....it's already been rendered.

Personally I render to 44.1/32, but I used to be quite happy with 44.1/24 - I might actually revert back to that soon. Don't worry about samplerate for your audio - you either choose to initially render highly, or you render at your 48kHz. Once you've rendered, there's no point in increasing later. You already use high bit depth, so if you're happy with your sound quality, there's nothing wrong with it. BUT, as I mentioned, look at what plugins you master with - if you're going to add anything above 24kHz with harmonics (even if you can't actually hear it!), the results of the limited samplerate may be audible. But if all you do is any mix of compression, limiting, Eq, non-harmonic enhancement, reverb, stereo width...then stay at 48kHz.