bouncing your tracks to audio

[dirty_bass]

Just a little tip from me.
I noticed in a thread in here a little while ago, a lot of you bounce your vst parts down to audio inside your DAW`s to save processing. and then post process (EQ, delay etc).

To keep audio quality high and to prevent increasing brittle-ness and coldness in your mixes (a general problem in all digital productions, unless you have an ear trained in analog), make sure you bounce down to 24/96

[stjohn]

is there really a need for 96 khz? or is this for some sort of post-producton afterwards?

i was reading an article in SOS about sampling for films and the mad ****ers were using 192 khz samples, and one lad wanted to used double that but their computer couldnt take it.

but i find it hard to see the benefit, i mean why go to the bother if you are working in a 48000 environment, the conversion maths involved can be a bit messy.

is it for the old neve subconscious frequency components theory? or alisaing or something. im interested

[dirty_bass]

24/48 is fine

[RDR]

i run at 24/48 constantly

until mixy downy timey

[loopdon]

is there really a need for 96 khz? or is this for some sort of post-producton afterwards?

i was reading an article in SOS about sampling for films and the mad ****ers were using 192 khz samples, and one lad wanted to used double that but their computer couldnt take it.

but i find it hard to see the benefit, i mean why go to the bother if you are working in a 48000 environment, the conversion maths involved can be a bit messy.

is it for the old neve subconscious frequency components theory? or alisaing or something. im interested

There was a huge thread about this on k-v-r. Can't recall the details but basically 96 khz was advised for soft synths which apparently can sound a lot better and detailed than at lower rates. It does make sense if you think about it and, esp. with emulations of famous analog hardware, get you nearer to 'the real thing'. It also works with lots of effects and becomes increasingly important if you use lots of processing deviceson different tracks. Unfortunately cpus ain't quite there yet :)

Enter the nerd zone:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewto...=sampling+rate

[danielmarshall]

I can't see why you'd want to work at a sampling rate higher than one you're giong to be using for the final product (usually 44100 for CDs).

There is the theoretical aspect of antialiasing, but the differences would be so subtle that I can hardly justify using up twice or four times my current CPU usage on it, and the negligable differnces only become measurable at exceptionally high frequency ranges (I'm talking around 10000htz), let alone audible.

Bit depth on the other hand can certainly be an issue, especially for mixing down bounced tracks. When you compress stuff heavily the artifacting and crossover distortion from poorer quality A/D converters can become very audible on bass frequencies when there's nothing else masking it.

[dirty_bass]

at leat 24/48 until mixdown.
It is easily audibly noticable.
Thus a lot of computer studio produced music sounds so damn bad and cheap.

[loopdon]

I can't see why you'd want to work at a sampling rate higher than one you're giong to be using for the final product (usually 44100 for CDs).

There is the theoretical aspect of antialiasing, but the differences would be so subtle that I can hardly justify using up twice or four times my current CPU usage on it, and the negligable differnces only become measurable at exceptionally high frequency ranges (I'm talking around 10000htz), let alone audible.

Bit depth on the other hand can certainly be an issue, especially for mixing down bounced tracks. When you compress stuff heavily the artifacting and crossover distortion from poorer quality A/D converters can become very audible on bass frequencies when there's nothing else masking it.

You even bothered to have a look at the link i posted? :)