Blind A/B Shootout: Upsampling Your Mix

[Kingston]

Yep. I suck, got it wrong!

me too.

I have a different type of mix comparison coming up (already uploaded on my server in fact). I'll do it in a few days. It's a whole lot easier to tell the difference in that.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Can't wait Kingston.

[Kingston]

Funkybot's Evil Twin,

I'm now pretty sure the reason for the negligible difference between the two files of yours is simply the lack of very audible saturation and distortion. I've done 3 other high rate mixes last week and it soon became pretty clear it's not very useful for simple subtle corrective EQing. Compression transients benefit lots.

[bduffy]

Funkybot's Evil Twin,

I'm now pretty sure the reason for the negligible difference between the two files of yours is simply the lack of very audible saturation and distortion. I've done 3 other high rate mixes last week and it soon became pretty clear it's not very useful for simple subtle corrective EQing. Compression transients benefit lots.

That was something I thought I noticed when I did a test: the only really discernable difference I could pick out was that the peaks seemed better behaved in the 96k version, so I was wondering if oversampling made compressors more accurate. Guess that's the case, eh?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Funkybot's Evil Twin,

I'm now pretty sure the reason for the negligible difference between the two files of yours is simply the lack of very audible saturation and distortion. I've done 3 other high rate mixes last week and it soon became pretty clear it's not very useful for simple subtle corrective EQing. Compression transients benefit lots.

I'm really interested to hear how this works out.

I'm beginning to thing that working with stems (after I've got a mix I'm already happy with) is probably the way to go for some final sparkle/gelling of a mix, but I question whether oversampling every stem and processing at a higher samplerate benefited enough to warrant the time. But on the other hand, if oversampling some key stems that make use of saturation/distortion plug-ins helps considerably, that may very well be something worth spending the time on.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Funkybot's Evil Twin,

I'm now pretty sure the reason for the negligible difference between the two files of yours is simply the lack of very audible saturation and distortion. I've done 3 other high rate mixes last week and it soon became pretty clear it's not very useful for simple subtle corrective EQing. Compression transients benefit lots.

That was something I thought I noticed when I did a test: the only really discernable difference I could pick out was that the peaks seemed better behaved in the 96k version, so I was wondering if oversampling made compressors more accurate. Guess that's the case, eh?

I'm thinking so, but I'm also going to venture to guess that it depends on the compressor. For instance I know Torben's MPL-1 uses oversampling in the detector, so I question how big of a difference would occur there at 44.1 vs. 88.2, but if a compressor didn't already feature this, I can see where it would benefit from operating at a higher rate. Daniel's TLS 2095-LA though, is apparently locked at 44.1 internally, so if I understand that correctly, it will respond the same at 44.1 as it would at a higher rate. Basically, I guess it's all up to design. In my example, Marquis and GCO-1 may very well have benefited from the oversampling.

[bduffy]

Funkybot's Evil Twin,

I'm now pretty sure the reason for the negligible difference between the two files of yours is simply the lack of very audible saturation and distortion. I've done 3 other high rate mixes last week and it soon became pretty clear it's not very useful for simple subtle corrective EQing. Compression transients benefit lots.

That was something I thought I noticed when I did a test: the only really discernable difference I could pick out was that the peaks seemed better behaved in the 96k version, so I was wondering if oversampling made compressors more accurate. Guess that's the case, eh?

I'm thinking so, but I'm also going to venture to guess that it depends on the compressor. For instance I know Torben's MPL-1 uses oversampling in the detector, so I question how big of a difference would occur there at 44.1 vs. 88.2, but if a compressor didn't already feature this, I can see where it would benefit from operating at a higher rate. Daniel's TLS 2095-LA though, is apparently locked at 44.1 internally, so if I understand that correctly, it will respond the same at 44.1 as it would at a higher rate. Basically, I guess it's all up to design. In my example, Marquis and GCO-1 may very well have benefited from the oversampling.

Right...interesting... that's kind of what I was thinking too. Personally, I'm torn right now; I've gone and upsampled/stem mixed half my songs now, but it's freakin' tiring and I need to wrap this album up, so I might walk away from stem mixing. I do enjoy the freedom of stem mixing, though.

I think for me, bottom line: next album starts at 88.2khz.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I think for me, bottom line: next album starts at 88.2khz.

Yeah, I think I'm going to hold off on upgrading my computer for a couple more months, to see if I can afford a PC then that can comfortably handle 88.2khz projects. But, I did just buy an RME Fireface 800, if the converters do end up providing a really noticable improvement over my old ones, maybe I won't feel like I need 88.2.

[bduffy]

I think for me, bottom line: next album starts at 88.2khz.

Yeah, I think I'm going to hold off on upgrading my computer for a couple more months, to see if I can afford a PC then that can comfortably handle 88.2khz projects. But, I did just buy an RME Fireface 800, if the converters do end up providing a really noticable improvement over my old ones, maybe I won't feel like I need 88.2.

Yeah, I talk the tough talk, but that would mean losing half the processing power, or making bounce-decisions earlier. Maybe the next one will be an acoustic-based, intimate affair...(yeah, right! )

[Kingston]

being an RME (HDSP) user meself I can confirm the impact of using high rates just for plain recording is only going to be significant when very high quality equipment is used. Preamps and mics need to be up to scratch. Forget it with behringer and friends.

[bduffy]

Right...maybe I'll stick with what works for now, until I get that signal path cleaned up...


(slowly pushes Behringer mixer out of frame...)

[Kingston]

You know I could build you the tube preamp of your dreams.

...for a fee. (not kidding actually.)

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Hmmm...you know Kingston, I might be interested. Right now my one high-end channel is a Grace 101 and I'm in the market for something with a bit more color (also the impedence of the 101 doesn't seem to like SM57s very much). If you want, PM me with some details.

[defjamm]

Hmmm...you know Kingston, I might be interested. If you want, PM me with some details.

+1

[bduffy]

You know I could build you the tube preamp of your dreams.

...for a fee. (not kidding actually.)

+2.

The guy at the music store was trying to sell me on a Focusrite or Presonus...you think I'd do better with a "Kingston"?