+1000digitaldrummer wrote:I love me some 192 MP3's. Way better than 128 or 96. But if you use Beats phones you don't really even need dubly anymore.
Mastering Rant:I could care less bout your Lavery converters
- Snarl 12/8
- cryogenically thawing
- Posts: 3511
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
- Location: Right Cheer
- Contact:
- Randyman...
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:30 pm
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
"bat specialist" would be a good rank.
i was thinking about your question some more...
might. i dunno.
i've never listened to any 192 audio....how can i, i have lavrys!....but i've certainly heard enough lousy 88.2 mixes and enough amazing 44.1 mixes to know that the sample rate is hardly the deciding factor, and that higher isn't inherently better.
i was thinking about your question some more...
....and if we accept lavry's argument in that paper (i do), then it might actually be better to do the mastering at 88.2 or 96 and then just upsample the final master for the 192 release.Do people find it unethical to just upsample in the box as the last step?
might. i dunno.
i've never listened to any 192 audio....how can i, i have lavrys!....but i've certainly heard enough lousy 88.2 mixes and enough amazing 44.1 mixes to know that the sample rate is hardly the deciding factor, and that higher isn't inherently better.
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
I think Dan is saying the earth is flat.
If I'm the customer and I want 192 Mastering, I'll find someone who can do it and do it well. What surprises me is the resistance to the idea from people who in my view are trying to do the absolute best they can for their clients.
As far as up sampling at the last stage goes, yes you can tell. It ends up in the digital fingerprint. The folks at HD Tracks test for just that.
If I'm the customer and I want 192 Mastering, I'll find someone who can do it and do it well. What surprises me is the resistance to the idea from people who in my view are trying to do the absolute best they can for their clients.
As far as up sampling at the last stage goes, yes you can tell. It ends up in the digital fingerprint. The folks at HD Tracks test for just that.
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
well, there's lots of smart people who agree with dan.
if you were an ME who had 16 grand in their lavry golds, you might raise an eyebrow when suddenly those weren't good enough for someone. you might also agree with dan that 192 is basically snake oil, and therefore by working at 88 or 96 you actually ARE doing the absolute best for your clients.
but you've been making records a long time, you must know some a-list ME's who can accommodate your 192 requests, no?
here's one thing i don't get about 192.....what is the interest in capturing all that high frequency we can't hear? yeah yeah i know, you can have a much less steep anti-alias filter than with 44.1, i get that. but what's the interest in capturing frequencies up to 96k? more than 2 octaves higher than anyone can hear.
no one's interested in making sure they get 5hz on their records, in fact everyone goes to great lengths to avoid it, no one would argue that records would sound better with all that unnecessary sub, but at the other end of the spectrum it's a different story. why?
if you were an ME who had 16 grand in their lavry golds, you might raise an eyebrow when suddenly those weren't good enough for someone. you might also agree with dan that 192 is basically snake oil, and therefore by working at 88 or 96 you actually ARE doing the absolute best for your clients.
but you've been making records a long time, you must know some a-list ME's who can accommodate your 192 requests, no?
here's one thing i don't get about 192.....what is the interest in capturing all that high frequency we can't hear? yeah yeah i know, you can have a much less steep anti-alias filter than with 44.1, i get that. but what's the interest in capturing frequencies up to 96k? more than 2 octaves higher than anyone can hear.
no one's interested in making sure they get 5hz on their records, in fact everyone goes to great lengths to avoid it, no one would argue that records would sound better with all that unnecessary sub, but at the other end of the spectrum it's a different story. why?
-
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:05 am
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
The very best measurement mics top out somewhere ~ 50 kHz... studio mics seldom go beyond 20 kHz... so there is nothing to hear up there in most recordings, even if you are a bat. Some consumers want 192/24 because they have bought the pitch and are drinking the koolaid. So its about marketing rather than fidelity...IMHO.roscoenyc wrote:Also, 192/24 isn't just about high end, you could also say it's about more detail.
If people want it, I'm gonna try to get it for them and it seems that the want is out there.
Jim Legere
Halifax, NS
Canada
Halifax, NS
Canada
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests