96 really makes a difference?

A place to talk about whatever Scope music/gear related stuff you want.

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
lovenara
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Contact:

96 really makes a difference?

Post by lovenara »

yesterday i think i'm ready to send my music for cdrelease
( recorded in 32bit 44khz,mastered to 16bit by myself )
i was only disappointed at one track ( the title track,yes! this always happen )
It is a lil thin comparing to other ( after lot of remixing to solve it!,maybe becos it got thick arrangement )
Last night i checked a good mix from one SW ( LIVE )
and found that the fact that it so good is becos it's in 96khz
,after reading many discussions about this in many audioboards
they said many pros still record for audioCD in 44 ( i think they dont have scope! )
I suddenly tried to remix my tracks in 96 but found that cubase
will be hanged if i change from 44>96 with many 44 wavs inside


So i come to this conclusion in a rush this morning
( if i were to rerender all wav>96 ,it's gonna take me another month or 2
,and yes if i can't release my music next month,myGF will leave me for sure! )
i convert the 32bit 44mix>32,96 inside wavelab then i remaster>16,44
i found that the result still better than 32,44>16,44
( or my ears deceived me?)
i mix my music with fostex headphone and check with my friend's KRK in his studio

i'm no math guru so i dont know i did any thing foolish on the digitalland or not
so i like to know your opinion about this.
Should i do this for the title track only ?
or do this for all tracks or forget all this hype about 96 and go on the old route.

thnx
lovenara
www.lovenara.net
User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by Mr Arkadin »

Well i can't see how something recorded at 44.1 bumped up to 96 then down again to 44.1 is going to enhance anything - unless you're talking about re-rendering VSTis and re-recording Scope instruments - i mean all you're audio is already 44.1 - all you'll do is add digital artifacts going up to 96 and then down to 44.1. Sounds like a recipe for a digital artifacts disaster.

Personally i find that listening to any of my own music for any length of time creates dissatisfaction. Listening on headphones is also not great - you must judge with the monitors only.

Maybe because you see it as the title track it doesn't seem to measure up - this may be only your perception.

Do you have OptiMaster, PsyQ or Transient Designer? Maybe try applying those to part or the whole of the mix.

Can you post a snippet from the title track and a snippet from another track you think sounds better - someone might be able to make a judgement.
Last edited by Mr Arkadin on Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lovenara
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by lovenara »

hi
thnx
i master with ozone and when i did with 96wav i think i have more space to play with
(
it's like a child playing in a bigger playground )
i'll post a snippet of all before,after this evening
User avatar
Mr Arkadin
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by Mr Arkadin »

i don't know Ozone, but i do know that quite often when applying enhancers like PsyQ etc. everything seems more exciting. Then you go away, listen to it back later that evening and realise that everything sounds harsh and fatiguing. Some distance from your material may be required.
lovenara
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by lovenara »

uhmm,ok i cut them to pieces,please check them ( maybe i got panic listening to livedemosong really scared me )
my line is slow so i have to cut them to little pices but they're all in their 16bit,44

http://lovenara.net/other44-16.wav
http://lovenara.net/title44-16.wav
http://lovenara.net/title96-16.wav

glad i check this forum first
thnx
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 96 really makes a difference?

Post by astroman »

lovenara wrote:...Last night i checked a good mix from one SW ( LIVE )
and found that the fact that it so good is becos it's in 96khz ...
well, you don't even need to be an expert to hear that your conclusion is completely wrong - fortunately it is... :D

this is not realated to the sample rate at all - it's just the frequency distribution.
I dunno your original sounds, but given they covered 'the full spectrum' (more or less) you either have a phase problem that extinguish the low mids/high bass or you equed a 'boomyness' of the room/headphones out of the track that now makes the band lack in the mix - producing a 'hollow' sound.

Headphones (I use them a lot) are very difficult to 'translate' to speaker sound emission.
If the Fostex cans were below $100 they are crap anyway -i once had a pair of such.
Affordable 'reference' headphones are AKG 240, for long time use the 301 to 701 series is more convenient, but may slightly 'underrepresent' the bass.
The latter is particularily nice giving a very open soundstage at least somewhat similiar to a speaker.
Worth checking one day if for some reason you're forced to have them on for long periods.

you should verify that your routing has no accidental 'parallel' recording of the monitor bus - or that you monitor one source 2 times.
then find out if the room emphasizes certain frequencies (causing you to reduce them by equing)
a quick and dirty 'all-revealing-elcheapo-monitor' is a pair of small Sennheiser earphones in the $50 range - comes very close to the typical hifi imho.

cheers, Tom
User avatar
hifiboom
Posts: 2057
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Germany, Munich
Contact:

Post by hifiboom »

To give my 2 cent also:

I would split this topic into 3 parts for discussion:

(1) you have 44,1 recorded wav files and upsample them with software to higher sampling rates.
the sound of the source will never improve, its not possible to add information by calculation.
so I guess the only thing that gains is that you need to do more work. :lol:

(2) you record everything at 96 khz and mix with 96 khz and you master your track to a high quality media with 96khz.
If you got very sensitive ears you may hear a very small difference.

But it may be in the same range as people argue that vinyl sounds better than CD.

If you mix down to a 44,1 khz master, the gain in soundquality is questionable.

(3) you are using virtual instruments (scope synths or VSTi) and virtual fx (Scope fx and VSTfx)
here you may expect a huge gain in quality, as an algo running at 96khz is more detailed and may result in a finer sound.
aliasing on synths is degreased, and so on .... even fx like comp algos or reverbs may improve in sound fidelity.

this again depends on how the algo is implimented. the high class cw synths in scope sound as good as 44,1 as other would do at higher sampling rates.

and keep in mind it is also possible that you are using an fx (VST?) that may also degrade your soundquality, so I would start disabling some fx plug-ins in the master chain and see if sound improves.
I think there are many virtual fx available which have inferior quality.

I mainly trust the CW fx in terms of quality. Many crap available in form of VST.

At the end disabling such an fx in 44,1khz may result in a bigger jump in quality than going for 96khz environment.

:)
tgstgs
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:00 pm

Post by tgstgs »

answer = no .

http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/ ... eite1.html

sorry its in german and old but still the truth;
worth to translate

good vibes at 44100 Hz
and good luck for you music
dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Post by dawman »

I agree w/ Hifiboom on synths recorded at 96k that are DSP models from our platform.

I can hear a major difference, especially on the WAV / PCM based type synths or presets. QWave is an already fine sounding synth but it uses WAV's and gets a small boost. I really noticed it on Vectron, Blue Wave, and several Modular synth patches like Morpheus.

I wish we could add or subtract calculations though. I always wanted to do some lo-fi stuff in Scope, bit it's too damn pretty 4 that.
User avatar
next to nothing
Posts: 2521
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

Post by next to nothing »

"I always wanted to do some lo-fi stuff in Scope, bit it's too damn pretty 4 that."

not exactly lo-fi in every term, you should check out wavelegths stuff.
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman »

that's correct - the OP8 is the closest thing to the sound of the Commodore 64 SID chip that I know, without(!) trying to fake it's architecture.
QWave, Vectron, Blue Wave etc all use 8 bit Wavetables (the original Waldorfs) - the slightly harsh sound is a feature, it's charming ... :D

cheers, Tom
dawman
Posts: 14368
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: PROJECT WINDOW

Post by dawman »

Agreed,
The 8 bit WAV's are fine, and get a little shinier w/ 96k.

Does Wavelength still do business? I remember reading a few years back about the OP8, and was very interested in his description of the synth, as well it's multiple versions of portamento that were offered. At first I thought iot might be an Oberheim emu, i.e. OB8, but obviously not.

I still love the 12 bit sound of my Prime Time delay, and still carry over many samples from my Ensoniq Mirage, as the dirty 8 bit sound was great for lead guitars, and filthy synths. They have gone from the Ensoniq format, to EMU, to Akai, to Oberheim DPX, and to all of Giga's old and new versions. It is still the best Guitar sample for battling with Guitarist's that I have. It was a sample of the same set up C. Santana used w/ his Gibson SG, and hardwired Humbuckers.
hubird

Post by hubird »

scope4live wrote:Does Wavelength still do business?
no, he quit, because of other, old and new interests, but the OP8 is his masterpiece, and you still can buy it, so we should be fine with it :-)
http://www.track0.com/wavelength/devices.html
geoffd99
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: South London

Post by geoffd99 »

Back to quality issues:
I went through a phase of mastering onto a different pc with analog out of Scope in stereo, into other pc at 96khz/24 bit; but this was a big hassle so I ended up going back to mastering on same Scope pc, into Live, via 24 bit Asio, then rendering out of there at 24bit/44.1. Or 16/44 if I was in a hurry and wanted to just post some tracks or stick on a cd.

Then I used HarBal for balancing - if I feel paranoid that is.

Some of my old 16 bit/Optimaster mixes are so big and loud, it's gotta be in the mix, before all the 16/24/44/48/96 stuff.

If the music is for cd and web distribution (which is usually is) then surely mastering out at 16/44.1 will be better than post-production on the bits?

This is even easier now, just render out of live (or whatever) at 16/44

Why is this considered scary? Most of us have been in bands at some point, and our hearing is a bit f***** anyway. What? What ????

The only time anyone mentioned an improved sound was when I paid money and mixed via an Audient Sumo, which is 2000£ or so I think. And that was subtle.

Anyway, music sounds how it sounds, no-one else has a reference for your track, just make it fat and loud, or sweet and tinny, whatever you want.

If it is for release get a mixer to mix it, and a mastering studio to master it. Some people master by email, they are cheap but can improve a track (I think mainly through high end gear, good ears, and good monitoring). This is OK for 'on a budget' releases.

I did this lot on Scope; try and spot the one done through the Audient gear.

I am under the name 'Emperors' and have some Satie pieces and some dancey stuff too. (The name Emperors is cos I record what I feel like! Since I am an amateur = for the love of it!)

www.recotist.com
Post Reply