• This forum is an archive and no additional posts are possible at this time.

Jacquire at Pensado's Place

DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
This is one of my favourite Pensado interviews. There's so much amazing tidbits of info in here. Grab a coffee and sit back and watch this. You owe it to yourself.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld5eKWOcFgE
 
jfjer

jfjer

Active Member
Jacquire King is tracking in 96khz and mixing in 48khz
he says in the Pensado`s episode 183 that 96khz capture the best representation for tape
but he feels when you mix that in 48khz the least important sonic s get trowed away
and that analogue gear works better in 48khz vs 96khz

so there`s a really nice excuse for recording in 96khz with really low latency right there
im sure gonna try this next time i record my self with my rme fireface to hear if there are some sonic s that i like more than 48khz recording ( very exiting :) )
if you haven't watched the episode i highly recommend it, very inspiring :)
 
DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
Last edited:
C

calimike

Venerated Member
My biggest take-away from it was that for pro's, mixing is more about automation moves and minor balancing issues, not processing, which is why many pros are cool with plugins. 95% of the sounds should be fixed during tracking anyway, not mixing.
 
Kcatthedog

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
remember to dither down though

agreed: really enjoyed the episode; jk comes across as a very thoughtful and knowledgable guy; he always substantiates his opinions !
 
DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
Dude. You don't dither on Sample Rate Conversion... only on Bit Depth Reduction!
 
Bear-Faced Cow

Bear-Faced Cow

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, definitely don't use dither there. All you'll be doing is introducing noise.

I'm more apt to recording at 88.2 than 96. I would not rather risk any cross sample distortion when burning a CD. I will use 48/96 when I'm working with anything video, however. All depends all the primary media I know I will be working with.
 
slamthecrank

slamthecrank

Hall of Fame Member
Bear-Faced Cow said:
I'm more apt to recording at 88.2 than 96. I would not rather risk any cross sample distortion when burning a CD. I will use 48/96 when I'm working with anything video, however. All depends all the primary media I know I will be working with.
Click to expand...
I don't even do that. I record at 44.1 for the simple reason that I've heard no difference -- and boy did I try!! -- between the two. When using high end plugs like UAD, the processing gets over-sampled anyway, so the end result at 44.1 is the same no matter what, and I feel that the benefits from mixing at 44.1 outweigh the inherent headache of doing so at higher sample rates. Then, at the final stage of mastering, I'm much more aware of what the end-result of dither-down is going to sound like. I hope that makes sense.
 
DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
I hear what you are saying and respect your opinions. This is my personal experience with it all. You ever take a high res picture and then shrink it down, looks great doesn't it?... but a picture taken natively at that smaller size looks grainy and less defined. That's how I hear audio. I track at 96 or 88.2 (like BFC mentioned, depends on final destination) and mix at 48 or 44.1 :) The extra extension in high frequencies and fidelity in tracking at higher sample rates (and also having a less steep anti-aliasing filter farther up the spectrum) is what I'm after (Mr Rupert Neve has a great article on this; it's not all about what we can hear, but also what we feel). Same as I track at 24bit, mix at 32bit-float even if it's going to end up at 16bit for CD/mp3. You need the extra dynamic range while tracking to get as far as possible from the noise floor, you need the extra floating bits when mixing to push things more no matter what the final bit depth of the delivery medium. Crap in, crap out :p

slamthecrank said:
... I feel that the benefits from mixing at 44.1 outweigh the inherent headache of doing so at higher sample rates. Then, at the final stage of mastering, I'm much more aware of what the end-result of dither-down is going to sound like. I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
You only dither when going from a higher bit depth to a smaller one, not when converting the sample rate.
 
Last edited:
Kcatthedog

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
oops what was I thinking ! ( Actually i was thinking about another thread about dithering on the realgear ; sorry)

I thought Kj was arguing that it (96=>48) cuts artifacts and noise out not that the only benefit was the increased resolution ?
 
Last edited:
DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
This is what I got from it:

JK tracks at 96kHz because it captures the tape bandwidth with more fidelity and mixes at 48kHz because he finds his analog gear reacts better to a rolled off 48KHz signal. His point was that tape naturally and gradually rolls off the high frequencies and digital doesn't. His argument was that all this analog gear was manufactured in the Tape Era to work with tape and how tape behaved. Digital captures all frequencies linearly (up to the Anti-Aliasing filter), so in the case of mixing with 96kHz files, you get a lot of "clean" high frequency information up to 48khz, where as in tape it would be heavily rolling off the highs long before that point, thus when mixing with 96kHz digital files, then gear is "over reacting" to all this high frequency information that it's "not accustomed" to "dealing with"!!! Contrarily, mixing at 48kHz with the Anti-Aliasing filter at 24kHz, it behaves "more like tape" with less high frequency information with a high amplitude!!! That's what I understood anyway :p

EDIT:
Here is a 60 minute talk with Mr. Neve where he gets into his experience with sound, hearing and feeling. This link will jump to 35minutes where he gets into it a bit, but you really owe it to yourself to watch the whole interview. He talks about his 60+ years of experience in the audio industry. It's quite simply brilliant:
http://youtu.be/AGt0KXW_T1Y?t=34m53s

Here's another good spot about frequencies we can't hear, but feel:
http://youtu.be/AGt0KXW_T1Y?t=44m31s
 
Last edited:
C

calimike

Venerated Member
Thanks for summarizing that point, because JK's Pensado episode was the first one I watched (a few months ago) and I skipped around a bit and think I missed that interesting point.
 
DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
My pleasure. Again, that was my take on it and may have misinterpreted JK. I'm going to split this part of the conversation off into another thread as we've gone (interestingly) way off subject ;) I'll put it in the JK Pensado Interview thread :)
 
Last edited:
felipenoris

felipenoris

Member
This is interesting. It's a subject I've been researching for a while.
Is there any benefit by using higher sampling rates?
Some "truths":
1-you can't hear higher frequencies past ~20khz.
2- if you sample ~40khz you get a perfect representation of signals limited to ~20khz. There's, from a math perspective, no loss whatsoever. You can recover exact smooth signals. No step signals involved.
3- you can get aliasing problems if you record signals that contains higher frequencies. So the main reason for using higher sampling rates is low pass filter design, needed to low pass the signal beign recorded right before AD conversion.
4- if you process the signal, you can benefit from high sampling. Not every plugin will upsample a signal before processing.
5- all that said, if you assume your interface has good quality low pass filters before AD conversion, it all comes down to which processing you'll apply to the signal if you want to benefit from recording at higher sampling rates
6- all previous statements may be wrong


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
Kcatthedog

Kcatthedog

Hall of Fame Member
Hear ye hear ye!!

Well for me the really interesting thing in this debate transcend the human hearing frequency thresholds, its neve's apparently proven idea that we experience sound far beyond what we can hear!

This is a whole other paradigm to the auditory frame.

It suggests that we have some more still physical but more ephemeral experience of music which transcends digital coding theory and practise. Perhaps the truly great musical experience is about much more than 1's and 0's?

I am reassured by this thought : music transcends digital sampling theory: what a concept: what a wonderful analogue !:)
 
DanButsu

DanButsu

Administrator
Forum Admin
Moderator
I can not hear a 20kHz sine wave at 60dB, but I sure can feel it right between the eyes
 
Last edited:
J

Jacquire King

Grammy Winning Producer/Mixer
This is basically correct
DanButsu said:
This is what I got from it:

JK tracks at 96kHz because it captures the tape bandwidth with more fidelity and mixes at 48kHz because he finds his analog gear reacts better to a rolled off 48KHz signal. His point was that tape naturally and gradually rolls off the high frequencies and digital doesn't. His argument was that all this analog gear was manufactured in the Tape Era to work with tape and how tape behaved. Digital captures all frequencies linearly (up to the Anti-Aliasing filter), so in the case of mixing with 96kHz files, you get a lot of "clean" high frequency information up to 48khz, where as in tape it would be heavily rolling off the highs long before that point, thus when mixing with 96kHz digital files, then gear is "over reacting" to all this high frequency information that it's "not accustomed" to "dealing with"!!! Contrarily, mixing at 48kHz with the Anti-Aliasing filter at 24kHz, it behaves "more like tape" with less high frequency information with a high amplitude!!! That's what I understood anyway :p

EDIT:
Here is a 60 minute talk with Mr. Neve where he gets into his experience with sound, hearing and feeling. This link will jump to 35minutes where he gets into it a bit, but you really owe it to yourself to watch the whole interview. He talks about his 60+ years of experience in the audio industry. It's quite simply brilliant:
http://youtu.be/AGt0KXW_T1Y?t=34m53s

Here's another good spot about frequencies we can't hear, but feel:
http://youtu.be/AGt0KXW_T1Y?t=44m31s
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
UAD Bundle Month
Top