88.2 Khz > 96 Khz



huh, that’s kinda f’ed up.
i usually use 88.2khz when mixing and mastering, like the article says; gives no/less distortion or artifacts when converting to 44.1. i’m no audio-geek that way though, so I doubt I’d notice any difference in a blind test anyway… ;)

Depending on downsampling algorithms, everyone can hear the difference. Anyways, if your target media is CD, it’s smarter to use 88.2kHZ sampling rate.

How I can do this in renoise? I think/if I remember correctly, I can choose from my M-audio 24/96 only sampling frequences 44,1kHz 48kHz & 96kHz

well, now I have been using 96kHz because this way I get smallest latency to my MIDI stuff.
Also I have been thinking of purchasing of old quality tape recorder deck for mastering, so in the end it wouldnt be matter what mixing frequency you use while making music cos down sampling conversion goes thru analog device.

sorry for off topic, cAMEL

edit: yes, was talking about this

mayby you foo? you can tell me that basic cassette deck player should be fair enough? not reel to reel deck… cheers!

This is something I’ve done much research into, especially as someone who offers mastering services commercially. Yes, it SHOULD be 88.2khz as a standard, but it ain’t. Add to the problem that not a lot of VST plugs can work at 88.2 and you’re tearing your hair out…

So, workarounds:

I work in 96khz all the way to the very last mastering stages. I have two options in downsampling to 44.1khz for consumer playback: 1. Digital algorithms, or 2. Playing the 96 mix to tape and enjoying tape colour and re-recording the mix off the tape at 44.1 - both have drawbacks for reasons I won’t detail here.

But if we’re talking the digital method be at peace knowing that if you have a good algorithm to use (such as the Adobe one) the material is actually UPSAMPLED first to some ridiculous high number so that the downsampling process is harmonically matched to 44.1. The results are fucking excellent and near enough transparent in the audible range. Then as a last step select your favourite professional dithering process and knock it down from 32bit float to 16bit. Use dithering, it sounds better and it also sounds better than using an mp3 algorithm to do the bit conversion.

A flip side to the corporate argument is that Sony and Philips should have got the CD Audio format right in the first place by putting it at 48khz. But don’t loose too much sleep over it. I’d put more attention into making sure you’ve got a good mix in the first place - there are tonnes of albums out there that have been done at 44.1khz from go to woe and those artist still have fans :)

are you sure about this? I haven’t had any trouble with this yet - I think.*
what kind of problems have you experienced?

if using 88,2 will be a problem for me in the future, because software developers don’t care for this samplerate, I’d better switch to 96hz I guess.

With the quality of the downsampling methods I spoke about in the last post you’re also better off going as high a sample rate as your computer can handle, just to get that extra quality.

I’d go up to 192khz if my computer could handle it, but already some 96k project hammer my quad core pretty damn hard.

At the rate computers improve, in a few years that shouldn’t be a big problem, right?

I use 192kHz, where available, for recording small sounds to be used as samples, e.g. in Renoise (just for the samples, not the mixdown). That way I can transpose the sounds down over 2 octaves without hearing a degraded sample rate.