..:: TAREKITH'S GUIDE TO MASTERING ::..

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Timur
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:55 am

Post by Timur » Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:43 am

Higher frequencies give you less aliasing (artefacts) to begin with. While noise shaping tries to push those artefacts to the highest frequencies where you cannot hear them and they use less energy oversampling (that's what you do when you record at 96 kHz but only need 44 kHz) always means more informations and thus less aliasing.

Higher sampling rates of 88/96/192 kHz can be an advantage if you put a sound through several editing stages, because it will retain more of the original signal and introduce less aliasing. Because of that it's mostly useful when you record something then put several digital effects on it and then sample it down, most preferably including noise shaping dithering. But dithering has another purpose in that it can make a 16 bit output sound more like a 20 bit output. Like Tarekith already demonstrated it can make you hear low dB sounds that you would not have heard in the 16 bit output.

Software can behave vastly different at higher sampling rates, sometimes better sometimes worse:

- Arturia's Moog sounds ALOT different, much clearer, more into the face, grittier

- all NI Kontakt based instruments (Battery, Acoustic Piano) seem to have a broken Reverb algorithm which makes reverbs sound alot more dry

Coming to the 88 kHz source to a 44 kHz destination question:

In a perfect world we would all like to have as high a sample-rate and bitrate as possible, because that always means to come closer to the original analog continous signal (actually it not continous but sampled at quantum level 8)). But in a real world we don't necessarily have to record at high sample-rates, it's good enough if software calculated internally at higher sample-rates. That means it upsamples the incoming signal, works it's magic/editing on it and downsamples at the end. Guitar Rig is said to do so when you use "High Resolution" mode. According to the manual the sample-rate is doubled then, but I am not yet sure if that means "double the input rate" or if it means "NOT half the input rate". Also the Creative X-Fi uses oversampling for it's Sample-Rate Conversion (SSRC) algorithm:

Image

As you can see they do seem to use even multiples, but that's only half of the truth. I suspect that only the first upsampling stage (44 kHz -> 88 kHz) is an even multiple, which means that every sample is simply dublicated. That way you don't lose any information by the upsampling process, but also you don't gain anything (it's just two times the same information). The second stage does not just multiply the source signal but use some sophisticated algorithm on it to bring it up to 192 kHz. The last stage samples it down to 48 kHz and very most likely it will NOT just divide the 192 kHz sample down by 4 but also use some other algorithm.

Anyway you see that SSRC involves more than just multiplying and dividing. A sophisticated SSRC algorithm will not just divide an 88 kHz signa by 2 to reach a 44 kHz signal. And because of that having 96 kHz to begin with should be an advantage to having 88 kHz, because there is slightly more information in 96 kHz and more source information means better destination information. But that all depends on the algorithm used to downsample.

A good way to "visualize" what happens is to think of resizing a picture, which is effectively the very same downsampling. Look at this comparison:

Image

Obviously the outcome very much depends on how you downsample. Some of those algorithm result in a sharper picture with more detail, but also with more aliasing, while others results in a smoother picture with less detail but also less aliasing. Oftentimes the best way is not to sample directly from the source to the destination size, but use several stages including sharpen/unsharpen in those in-between steps, which is kind of what the X-Fi does.

So chosing a good downsampling algorithm (preferably including noise shaping dithering for the bit-rate conversion part) can be vital if you use higher sample-rates. Personaly I would prefer if more software/plugins used higher sample-rates internally at only those places where it makes sense so that we can save memory and CPU for other things. Whatever, higher bit-rates seem to make more sense with the use of a good algorithm for mastering that noise shapes artefacts into the inaudible spectrum. But I need to investigate further into this to understand the internals of sample-rates in DAWs.

radib
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:11 am

Post by radib » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:59 pm

All not bad or wrong, but I think one doesn´t need to describe all subjective complications due to the basical keywords as ever are research, experience and development - always on going, never ending. Cause everyone got his own profile and vision, influences, relevances and all those approach to get the general formula just shrinks it down and especially spoils the adventurous fun of free exploring. In the end no one needs or wants pseudo-things like these, everyone´s happy when school is closed.

Just be patient and hungry at once, and you will get along very well. And fuck the critcis!
-


"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."

Tarekith
Posts: 17576
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:04 pm

How about fuck you?

djritchie
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:08 am

Post by djritchie » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:16 pm

Tarekith wrote:How about fuck you?
Tarekith i have nuff respect for you - love all your tutes and well rounded comments etc...

As for RADIB! what a GIMP... i know he doesnt care what I THINK he is...but i know it now.. lets just re-iterate how clueless radib is...

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0


Shame

Tarekith
Posts: 17576
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:26 pm

It's that thread that prompted my comment. He can keep useless trolling to other threads, and leave them out of posts from people generally trying to give something back to others.

radib
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:11 am

Post by radib » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:51 pm

Cuties. But you wanna lead people to waste their rare time with sorting crumbs like you did/do. Better point it:


All not bad or wrong, but I think one doesn´t need to describe all subjective complications due to the basical keywords as ever are research, experience and development - always on going, never ending.




This in here isn´t a guide to "mastering". Its a guide how to creep like a slug through the mysteries of mastering, always ending up in a floor far beneath it. You talk about some basial thoughts that encounter when you learn mixing for the very first times. But mastering is something more sensitive, more eloquent at its origin. Even premastering requires an overlook with higher clearance.
-


"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."

pixelbox
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:24 pm

Post by pixelbox » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:22 pm

radib wrote:Cuties. But you wanna lead people to waste their rare time with sorting crumbs like you did/do. Better point it:


All not bad or wrong, but I think one doesn´t need to describe all subjective complications due to the basical keywords as ever are research, experience and development - always on going, never ending.




This in here isn´t a guide to "mastering". Its a guide how to creep like a slug through the mysteries of mastering, always ending up in a floor far beneath it. You talk about some basial thoughts that encounter when you learn mixing for the very first times. But mastering is something more sensitive, more eloquent at its origin. Even premastering requires an overlook with higher clearance.
OMFG. My apologies to Tarekith and any one else trying to actually LEARN something from him (Tarekith).

First off, Rabid or Radib, there is no English word "Basical" nor "basial", so no one really knows what the fuck you are saying, but taking an educated guess, how the hell do you think anything is accomplished in life? It doesn't happen by magic, it happens by STUDY. By RESEARCH, by EXPERIMENTATION, by COMPARISON (with proof, btw). We don't go around donning our cape and magic hat and say "this is that because I think that way." Go bug the Cubase forum and stop torturing us with your drivel.

radib
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:11 am

Post by radib » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:31 pm

Before speaking, learn telling.


And to tear magic from science is very dumb pupil-like.
-


"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."

Tarekith
Posts: 17576
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Location: Ableton Forum Administrator
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:49 pm

I wish I was a mod so I could lock and delete threads, ban useless people, and generally make these forums the place for knowledge and helping each other they should be.

Oh well, thank god for ALDJ. :)

radib
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:11 am

Post by radib » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:52 pm

Tarekith wrote:I wish I was a mod so I could lock and delete threads, ban useless people.

For the angry and pissed off dictator: "Everybody wants to rule the world" - Tears For Fears
-


"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."

trucker
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:47 am

Post by trucker » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:55 pm

Tarekith wrote:I wish I was a mod so I could lock and delete threads, ban useless people, and generally make these forums the place for knowledge and helping each other they should be.

Oh well, thank god for ALDJ. :)

+1

and thanks for the tutorial.

radib
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:11 am

Post by radib » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:22 pm

trucker wrote:
+1

In all history nothing was glued as folky dumbness still is.
-


"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."

trucker
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:47 am

Post by trucker » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:39 pm

:roll:

Timur
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:55 am

Post by Timur » Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:48 pm

radib wrote:Cause everyone got his own profile and vision, influences, relevances and all those approach to get the general formula just shrinks it down and especially spoils the adventurous fun of free exploring. In the end no one needs or wants pseudo-things like these, everyone´s happy when school is closed.
Well, in parts you are right, but don't forget that there's alot of people who don't know where to even start and who don't have the creative skills nor vision to start from scratch and learn all by themself from zero. So giving those people some general hints to start with, a point to start their own exploration or just to start a debate these people can follow to learn different viewpoints is helpful and a good thing. And if there exists something like a general formula, or better: a general consensus of what is a good approach to begin with, then the old says hold true:

You need to know the rules first, before you can deliberately break them!

In other words: First learn about the standard routines other people are using then elaborate your own way to transcend from the norm of other people.

radib
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:11 am

Post by radib » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:50 pm

Sure. I´m suprised there is one around that might read before yelling, but let me tell you it is the huge gap between approach/thread-title/amount of words; and usefull content. So I didn´t want to hide my thoughts.

It´s a waste of time, cause there is a good book for nearly anything in this which is labeled and designed clear and alright for its purpose that would be worth it. Threads like these do more confuse and irritate than help.


And: Just my view on it.
-


"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."

Post Reply