[Nate Najar]

If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for the
cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the video?

[RD Jones]

On Feb 28, 10:33*pm, Nate Najar wrote:
If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for the
cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the video?

The easy answer here is track at 96 and downconvert for both (or just
the CD).

Absent the high sr ability, or inclination, I'd track for best match
to CD, 44.1.
The reasoning here is that the CD has to stand on it's own, the video
has it's
picture as the focal point, the audio portion is secondary and/or less
critical.
Top notch src should mitigate these concerns anyway.

Just my $.02.

rd

[hank alrich]

RD Jones wrote:

The easy answer here is track at 96 and downconvert for both (or just
the CD).

Seconded. Not only easier, but IME, odds improve that the result will
provide the better compromise among all final formats.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Nate Najar" wrote in message


If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and
also a DVD release, do I record at 48k for the video guy
and SRC to 44.1 for the cd, or do i record at 44.1 for
the cd and src to 48 for the video?

When I simultaneously record sound for video with a separate digital
recorder (a Microtrack), I do one of the following:

(1) Record at 24/96 when that's how the recorder was set for the last time I
used it for technical measureents and I didn't notice. I then curse myself
when I have to downsample to both 44 and 48 because that can be time
consuming. I curse myself during the session when I start worrying about
running out of space on my recorder's CF memory.

(2) Record at 48 so that the sound for the video doesn't need to be
resampled, and accept the time it takes to downsample to 44 since that seems
to be nearly irreducable.

(3) Record at 44 and get plenty of time capacity out of my flash drive and
be guaranteed of audibly perfect results. I then accept the time it takes to
upsample to 48 since that seems to be irreducable. If memory serves,
upsampling is faster than downsampling on my DAW because one phase of low
pass filtering is not required. In review, in the cold light of day, this
seems to be the best option.

(4) Record MP3 at 320 K, and have space to burn on my digital recorder's
flash memory. But then I have to wait for it to be expanded out for the
other purposes.

IME the audible outcomes are all identically the same.

BTW I'm probably not going to buy any more flash memory for the Microtrack
because I'm gearing up to use my new Ikey RM3 for my festival backup
machine, and it runs on USB and SDHC flash, not CF. The Ikey only does 44,
48 and MP3 to 320.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for the
cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the video?

My tendency would be to record at 44.1 since the CD production people
probably care more about sound quality than the video production folks do.

Still, these days SRC can be very, very good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nate Najar]

On Feb 28, 11:33*pm, Nate Najar wrote:
If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for the
cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the video?

thanks everybody.

what's the best way to convert sample rate? I'm on a mac.

when I record remote I like to use Pro tools because it's very stable
on my laptop and will run for hours with no problem (knock wood!).
but I like to mix in logic.

I've been doing gorilla mastering in waveburner (part of logic) and it
actually works ok. but I understand the SRC is crappy in it.
waveburner is really best just for assembling a cd though.

so, say I were to record at 96k, and mix it in logic at 96k.
mastering (processing) should be done in logic then at 96k and then
SRC down to 48 to give the video guy an aiff he can slice etc.... go
back to the logic mastering session and src to 44.1 for the cd?

so how do I downsample?

obviously I'm a musician who's learning to engineer for my own useage
mostly.....

thanks for the advice!

N

[[email protected]]

On 2011-03-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
Nate Najar wrote:
If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for
the cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the
video?
My tendency would be to record at 44.1 since the CD production
people probably care more about sound quality than the video
production folks do.
Still, these days SRC can be very, very good.

INdeed, another caveat. I'd talk to the client, see what
they plan to do and have them put you in touch with whoever
is doing the post production. THere could be sync issues.
I'd consult with other elements in the production chain on
this one then decide.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com



Experience is directly proportional to ruined equipment. ---

[Arny Krueger]

"Nate Najar" wrote in message

On Feb 28, 11:33 pm, Nate Najar
wrote:
If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and
also a DVD release, do I record at 48k for the video guy
and SRC to 44.1 for the cd, or do i record at 44.1 for
the cd and src to 48 for the video?

thanks everybody.

what's the best way to convert sample rate? I'm on a mac.

when I record remote I like to use Pro tools because it's
very stable on my laptop and will run for hours with no
problem (knock wood!). but I like to mix in logic.

I've been doing gorilla mastering in waveburner (part of
logic) and it actually works ok. but I understand the
SRC is crappy in it. waveburner is really best just for
assembling a cd though.

so, say I were to record at 96k, and mix it in logic at
96k. mastering (processing) should be done in logic then
at 96k and then SRC down to 48 to give the video guy an
aiff he can slice etc.... go back to the logic mastering
session and src to 44.1 for the cd?

so how do I downsample?

obviously I'm a musician who's learning to engineer for
my own useage mostly.....

thanks for the advice!

Based on the tests posted at:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Sox freeware, cross-platform from he

http://sox.sourceforge.net/

for free looks like a good choice.

[Mike Clayton]

Nate Najar wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:33 pm, Nate Najar wrote:
If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for the
cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the video?

thanks everybody.

what's the best way to convert sample rate? I'm on a mac.

when I record remote I like to use Pro tools because it's very stable
on my laptop and will run for hours with no problem (knock wood!).
but I like to mix in logic.

I've been doing gorilla mastering in waveburner (part of logic) and it
actually works ok. but I understand the SRC is crappy in it.
waveburner is really best just for assembling a cd though.

so, say I were to record at 96k, and mix it in logic at 96k.
mastering (processing) should be done in logic then at 96k and then
SRC down to 48 to give the video guy an aiff he can slice etc.... go
back to the logic mastering session and src to 44.1 for the cd?

so how do I downsample?

obviously I'm a musician who's learning to engineer for my own useage
mostly.....

thanks for the advice!

N
Nate, Get Wave Editor, US$79.00 from http://www.Audiofile-engineering.com

It has the Izotope SRC and dithering modules built in, and for that
alone is worth the price.

Mike

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Nate Najar wrote:

On Feb 28, 11:33 pm, Nate Najar wrote:

If I'm recording a live concert for a cd recording and also a DVD
release, do I record at 48k for the video guy and SRC to 44.1 for the
cd, or do i record at 44.1 for the cd and src to 48 for the video?

There is an AES recommendation to the effect that the better format should
not suffer the penalty of cateting for the lesser, also as I read it
suggesting that 48 kHz samplerate may be the one with the brighter future.
Consequently I have decided on 48 kHz as my "house standard".

However after learning from the link that Arny posted how troublesome sample
rate conversion can be, obviously not all tools are equally good, I
certainly understand why many advocate to if possible avoid it and also that
some feel that the DA-AD route is not always a bad choice.

N

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:
".

However after learning from the link that Arny posted how troublesome
sample rate conversion can be, obviously not all tools are equally
good, I certainly understand why many advocate to if possible avoid
it and also that some feel that the DA-AD route is not always a bad
choice.

Try it and see - if your result aren't compromised by your standards, then
there isn't a problem with it !. Try a good one (SRC) though.

Or choose a sample rate steered by your end product, so that SRC isn't
necessary ! Round we go again ;-).....

geoff

[PStamler]

On Mar 3, 1:26*pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:

There is an AES recommendation to the effect that the better format should
not suffer the penalty of catering for the lesser,

Ah, but is 44.1kHz or 48kHz the better format? I'd argue that if you
consider the whole chain, front to back, ending at the listener's ear,
a 44.1kHz CD stands at least a better chance of being listened to on a
decent system than a 48kHz DVD. It's not guaranteed, of course, but
I'd lavish my attention on the audio-only format, on the premise that
it's more likely to be heard properly than a video.

My actual preference, however, would be to record in DSD, then make
equally high-quality conversions to both 44.1kHz and 48kHz. That way
neither set of listeners gets shortchanged.

Peace,
Paul

[vdubreeze]

On Mar 3, 2:26*pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:

However after learning from the link that Arny posted how troublesome sample
rate conversion can be, obviously not all tools are equally good, I
certainly understand why many advocate to if possible avoid it and also that
some feel that the DA-AD route is not always a bad choice.


I found it interesting when I sat in at a mastering session at one of
the biggest NYC mastering studios for a project that involved new
music (44.1) and from live videos (48), they went DA-AD without
blinking an eye. Although it was almost a decade ago and conversion
tools have only improved, it drove that point home to me at the time.

[Scott Dorsey]

vdubreeze wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:26=A0pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:

However after learning from the link that Arny posted how troublesome sam=
ple
rate conversion can be, obviously not all tools are equally good, I
certainly understand why many advocate to if possible avoid it and also t=
hat
some feel that the DA-AD route is not always a bad choice.

I found it interesting when I sat in at a mastering session at one of
the biggest NYC mastering studios for a project that involved new
music (44.1) and from live videos (48), they went DA-AD without
blinking an eye. Although it was almost a decade ago and conversion
tools have only improved, it drove that point home to me at the time.

Yup. Odds are they had really top grade converters.... unfortunately not
everybody does. But these days even the cheap converters tend to be a lot
better than they used to be.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 3/4/2011 2:10 PM, vdubreeze wrote:

I found it interesting when I sat in at a mastering session at one of
the biggest NYC mastering studios for a project that involved new
music (44.1) and from live videos (48), they went DA-AD without
blinking an eye.

Things may have changed a bit since I read the mastering
book (and I can't remember if it was in Bob Katz' or Bobby
Owsinski's) but at the time it was quite common for the
first thing in the chain that a digital master hit was a D/A
converter so the engineer could use his analog processing
tools. Of course they have good converters, though, since
the mastering engineers are the only ones making any money
nowadays.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

vdubreeze wrote:

On Mar 3, 2:26 pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:

However after learning from the link that Arny posted how troublesome sample
rate conversion can be, obviously not all tools are equally good, I
certainly understand why many advocate to if possible avoid it and also that
some feel that the DA-AD route is not always a bad choice.


I found it interesting when I sat in at a mastering session at one of
the biggest NYC mastering studios for a project that involved new
music (44.1) and from live videos (48), they went DA-AD without
blinking an eye. Although it was almost a decade ago and conversion
tools have only improved, it drove that point home to me at the time.

That's how Jerry Tubb does it at Terra Nova Digital in Austin TX, and I
like it fine.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman