• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Topic: Best way to do 96k Conversions

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Best way to do 96k Conversions

    I just recived some songs to work on and they were cut at 24bit 96k. I\'m trying to work with that rate but it\'s just causing too many problems with my system. Since I\'m really only keeping the lead vocal and the guitar, I\'m figuring it would be just as good to convert those tracks down to 24bit, 44.1. How would be the best way to do that? I can\'t find a convert function in Logic. I can convert bit depth, but not sample rates [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]


    J-

  2. #2

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    Hi J,

    I would recommend you to resample to 48K and not to 44.1k because converting to 48k does only need a decimation process. This is taking one sample from each couple, what is a transparent operation. In contrast, if you reduce the sample rate to 44.1k, an interpolation process is required, so the original material will be altered in some way by the aplication you are using for the resampling.

    I have no experience with Logic, so I can not help you on how to do this whith it. But, anyway I would use Sound Forge or WaveLab if available for this, or try loading each track in Logic and exporting with a diferent sample rate.

    Regards,

    Galvedro

  3. #3

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    Hi J,

    I would recommend you to resample to 48K and not to 44.1k because converting to 48k does only need a decimation process. This is taking one sample from each couple, what is a transparent operation. In contrast, if you reduce the sample rate to 44.1k, an interpolation process is required, so the original material will be altered in some way by the aplication you are using for the resampling.

    I have no experience with Logic, so I can not help you on how to do this whith it. But, anyway I would use Sound Forge or WaveLab if available for this, or try loading each track in Logic and exporting with a diferent sample rate.

    Regards,

    Galvedro

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    389

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    J,

    Open the sample edit window, and under \"Factory\" choose \"Sample Rate Convert\". Choose your destination rate...this should do it.

    And galvedro\'s right. You\'ll get better results cutting 96 in half (48k), than by going to 44.1.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    www.wisemanproject.com
    Posts
    398

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    Yeah, go 48K.

    Any digital processing likes simpler number, like 1 : 2, not 1: 2.1768....

  6. #6

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    J,

    If you need to convert to 44.1 from 96K, get yourself two machines (I use my laptop and desktop) with good soundcards and good a/d, d/a converters and use an analog connection between them. I did extensive testing on downsampling a 96K file in Sound Forge and doing the analog transfer between an Echo Mona and Delta 1010, and the latter was very noticeably better. With the downsampling, a good deal of the high end was lost.

    -- Martin

  7. #7

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    Yuk. Why would this guy want to make my life so miserable? errrrrrrr. My engineer buddies around here are saying that it\'s best to actually do your recordings at 24/44.1 or 24/88.2, They say 24/96 is a pain for mastering because of this problem. Getting it down to 44.1 for CD is hard. Do you all concurr?


    J-

  8. #8
    hv
    Guest

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    Depends on your ultimate destination. Even multiples minimize down-sampling interpolation errors. For 44.1K CDs, recording at 88.2 would be best. But for 48K film/video/dvd, 96K is usually preferred. Editing and mixing also introduces similar errors which are cumulative. That\'s why it\'s advisable to edit/mix at as high a sample rate and word-length as possible and down-sample/dither as the very last step. The problem is that not all sound-card/software combos work well at higher rates... sometimes upgrading drivers and software versions help. Or trying different software. Finding a combo that works smoothly may be a struggle but the results are usually worth it.

    Howard

  9. #9

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    Martin,

    I am surprised to hear that you are losing high frequency content by downsampling in digital domain. I suspect this has to do with the antialias filter you are using. If you are not happy whith the one SF is using, then try filtering yourself before downsampling, and deactivating the anti-alias during the process. The only thing you must remember is that you will need significant atenuation from half the target sample rate (if you are downsampling to 48k, then at 24k).

    J,

    Sample rate conversion is always a tricky task, especially when source and target frequencies are not related by simple numeric relations. If you can not handle the 96k files in your DAW, then you don\'t have much options, you need to downsample. I would not recommend doing this D/A A/D conversion, as this will raise the noise floor of your base material.

    Regarding the topic on high samplerates and bit-depths, I think there is a huge difference working with 24 bits compared to 16, as this keeps digital noise really low, so you have a lot more dynamic range.

    But I don\'t have a clear opinion about samplerates. They let you record with wider bandwidth, so in theory, you will have better high frec response (assuming you have an appropiate mic). And this will be true only while you keep that samplerate, but except some DVD satandards, any delivery system will ask you for 48k or 44.1k, so the work you have done in those high ends will be lost. I am not sure \"the higher the better\" is applicable in this case.

    Hope this helps.

  10. #10

    Re: Best way to do 96k Conversions

    AudioEase makes a great sample rate conversion application.

    Yeah J, at this point, it is best to do all you edits and DSP with the tracks as is, then dither/reduce after it is finish. Or simply ... mix it to 24/96 and let the mastering engineer worry about the mathmatics ;-)

    I love high sample rates!!! I wish i could record exclusively at 24/96 (for 5.1) and 24/192 for stereo. But, at this point there is only one delivery method that is ALMOST consumer accepted ... DVD-A(udio). But, you need to spend nearly $10k for the encoder and authoring software.

    OT: Xmas shopping at Best Buy (did i mention i hate best buy) ..... i noticed a massive stack of $49 DVD players that played DVD-A !!! I was amazed!! And there were a handful of folks browsing the DVD-A/SACD section (usually it is just me) .. maybe they were lost ... WHO KNOWS ...

    *insert soapbox*

    I WANT HIGH REZ AUDIO !!!!!!!

    WE MUST EVOLVE ... 16/44.1 is an old standard (over 20 yrs old) ....

    And STEREO ???? Dont get me started!!!

    HIGH REZ DOES SOUND BETTER!

    Hehehe , sorry .......

    *end soapbox*

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •