Dubstepforum.com

Fauster wrote:

JizzMan wrote:

sunny_b_uk wrote: wouldn't surprise me if your doing this all in 44100KHz..

just wondering about this, I was under the impression that you're supposed to do all your stuff at 44100... Understand that I'm no expert in this stuff so I ask why not 44100?

There is nothing wrong with working at 44100. Also, I can't imagine any good mastering engineer ever using a de-esser. That makes absolutely no sense.

every hi end mastering studio de-esses.

takes out the harsh hi frequencies that maybe the producers didnt catch on their monitors

RandoRando wrote:

Fauster wrote:

JizzMan wrote:

sunny_b_uk wrote: wouldn't surprise me if your doing this all in 44100KHz..

just wondering about this, I was under the impression that you're supposed to do all your stuff at 44100... Understand that I'm no expert in this stuff so I ask why not 44100?

There is nothing wrong with working at 44100. Also, I can't imagine any good mastering engineer ever using a de-esser. That makes absolutely no sense.

every hi end mastering studio de-esses.

takes out the harsh hi frequencies that maybe the producers didnt catch on their monitors

I feel like slapping a de-esser across an entire mix would do more harm than good. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about though. I have yet to take the Advanced Mastering course at my school.

You got quite some heat on KVR.

Judging by the clip on your SC I woudn't even call it mastering. Just take Outbound advice and practice for a few years, invest money in gear and treatment. Then make this post again, because at this point nobody will throw their tracks your way even if you paid them. No offence, just my honest opinion.

JizzMan wrote:just wondering about this, I was under the impression that you're supposed to do all your stuff at 44100... Understand that I'm no expert in this stuff so I ask why not 44100?

if a lot of your synths/plugins have oversampling then you will be fine sticking to 44100 (a lot of free plugins like the one's OP mentioned don't have this)
i tend to produce at 44100 too, but when sound designing with complex chain FX i use oversampling in every plugin i can.
final mix downs and self masters i use 88200.
try using any synth with oversampling/use a higher samplerate and you will certainly notice a difference if you have proper monitors.
using massive in economy mode and then switching to ultra is an example of oversampling.

Fauster wrote:There is nothing wrong with working at 44100. Also, I can't imagine any good mastering engineer ever using a de-esser. That makes absolutely no sense.

"I can't imagine any good mastering engineer ever using a de-esser" im sure that's what doesn't make sense.
they will certainly use a good de-esser on a track with distorted highs since EQing doesn't always fix nasty aliasing in the high end.

"Ever" might have been an exaggeration.

Also, 44.1khz sample rate is capable of reproducing wavelengths at 22.05khz, above the human range of hearing. In my experience, moving the anti-aliasing filter cutoff up by raising the sample rate to 88.2 or 96 or 192 or whatever doesn't make any noticeable difference. The only stuff that is changing is well out of the human range of hearing anyway.

Fauster wrote:The only stuff that is changing is well out of the human range of hearing anyway.

thats not really true in the digital world, you can even hear a difference in 10-15KHz when it comes to certain plugins.
try putting a saw wave up a few octaves in a standard synth (e.g. 3xosc) and hear how nasty it sounds, use a higher sample rate or oversample.. hear the difference.
also oversampling makes a huge difference with fm synthesis especially.

sunny_b_uk wrote:

Fauster wrote:"Ever" might have been an exaggeration.

Also, 44.1khz sample rate is capable of reproducing wavelengths at 22.05khz, above the human range of hearing. In my experience, moving the anti-aliasing filter cutoff up by raising the sample rate to 88.2 or 96 or 192 or whatever doesn't make any noticeable difference. The only stuff that is changing is well out of the human range of hearing anyway.

thats not really true either, when it comes to VSTs you can even hear a difference in 10-15KHz.
try putting a saw wave up a few octaves in a standard synth like 3xosc and hear how nasty it sounds, use a higher sample rate or oversample.. hear the difference.
also oversampling makes a huge difference with fm synthesis especially.

That may be true. I'm not experienced enough yet to know. I'll give your examples a try when it's not 5am and every one else is sleeping.
Do you have any idea why this is? Why would affecting frequencies above 22.05khz change what you hear in lower frequencies?

I've gotten some requests and sent some MP3s back.

The SPITfish de-esser toward the end of the chain did help smoothe out the sound. I'm not crazy about limiting since I'm not mastering for loudness.

I'm slightly surprised how upset some people are about me charging $1.

jonahmann wrote:I'm slightly surprised how upset some people are about me charging $1.

That's some mighty fine selective ignorance right there.

Nobody is mad at you for charging $1. People are a little pissed that you took somebody else's track without their permission to support your own financial endeavor. Coupled with the fact that your master sounded a lot shittier than the original track.

U MAD?

You commited a mind-reading breach, and sound quality is subjective.

AND DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE DOWNLOAD ANY MUSIC YOU tnuc.


Anyway, the sample rate thing appears to be true. 192000 sounds better still.

jonahmann wrote:U MAD?

You commited a mind-reading breach, and sound quality is subjective.

AND DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE DOWNLOAD ANY MUSIC YOU tnuc.

What the fuck?

You're clearly just trying to hurt me.

Fauster wrote:Why would affecting frequencies above 22.05khz change what you hear in lower frequencies?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan06/a ... 0106_2.htm

sunny_b_uk wrote:

Fauster wrote:Why would affecting frequencies above 22.05khz change what you hear in lower frequencies?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan06/a ... 0106_2.htm

I understand aliasing. That's why anti-aliasing filters are in place. But these filters are in place whether you're at 44.1 or 192. You aren't going to be getting audible artifacts regardless.

So, just to clarify...

• He used a song that wasn't his to advertise his service
• He took down the song when requested

What's the issue here? Yes, it may have been a bit on the silly side to not check with the tracks owner before doing it, but it's been removed now so that side of things is closed...which leaves us only the mastering itself.

It's $1, and it's Try Before You Buy...seriously, folk need to wind their necks in. If you're arguing over a $1 when you have the option to not pay if you don't like what's on offer, you need to have a serious look at yourself.



Jonah - As a quick suggestion, can I suggest that maybe intead of offering a 128kbps MP3 of your work as example, you consider offering a clip of the track (say, 1min) in a lossless format like WAV/FLAC...higher bitrate = more clarity = easier to tell if you've done a decent job or not.

Just a thought

Fauster wrote:

sunny_b_uk wrote:

Fauster wrote:Why would affecting frequencies above 22.05khz change what you hear in lower frequencies?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan06/a ... 0106_2.htm

I understand aliasing. That's why anti-aliasing filters are in place. But these filters are in place whether you're at 44.1 or 192. You aren't going to be getting audible artifacts regardless.

i don't think you read it all
basically overloads with high inaudible frequencies causes them to foldback especially when it comes to digital audio processing. the waveform will fold inwards which creates unwanted frequencies anywhere in the hearing range, usually 5KHz upwards & sometimes lower.
as i said this especially happens with fm synths.. also with distortion plugins, time stretching samples etc.

sunny_b_uk wrote:

Fauster wrote:

sunny_b_uk wrote:

Fauster wrote:Why would affecting frequencies above 22.05khz change what you hear in lower frequencies?

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan06/a ... 0106_2.htm

I understand aliasing. That's why anti-aliasing filters are in place. But these filters are in place whether you're at 44.1 or 192. You aren't going to be getting audible artifacts regardless.

i don't think you read it all
basically overloads with high inaudible frequencies causes them to foldback especially when it comes to digital audio processing. which means the waveform will fold back inwards which creates unwanted frequencies anywhere in the hearing range, usually 5KHz upwards & sometimes lower.
as i said this especially happens with fm synths.. also with distortion plugins, time stretching samples etc.

I did. That "foldback" (aka "artifact") occurs when a wave exceeds half the sample rate. But with an anti-aliasing filter, any frequency above the cutoff point is removed, so that these artifacts don't happen. Everything in the digital world now has an anti-aliasing filter built in, so you aren't going to get any artifacts, regardless of whether you're at 44.1 or 192.



Edit:

sunny_b_uk wrote:overloads with high inaudible frequencies causes them to foldback especially when it comes to digital audio processing.

Actually, that only happens with digital audio processing. Digital audio is reproduced by taking lots of snapshots of the wave per second. 44,100 "snapshots" per second is a 44.1khz sample rate. "Foldbacks" or artifacts only occur when a frequency higher than half the sample rate occurs. This is called aliasing. That's what anti-aliasing filters are for.

Fauster wrote:Everything in the digital world now has an anti-aliasing filter built in, so you aren't going to get any artifacts, regardless of whether you're at 44.1 or 192.

anything made in synthmaker/synthedit doesnt have anti aliasing filters unless the creator of the VST specially coded it in themselves (a lot of the creators of free synths don't seem to do this).
im sure there must be a limit to anti aliasing filters..
i say this because i use VST Oversampler (by chris walton) on my commonly used synths & FX, it DOES make a lot of them sound cleaner which tbh proves to me that using higher samplerates can sometimes increase the quality of the sound (EDIT:) depending on the situation of course.

I sent him a track, he mastered it, I didn't like it so I sent it back telling him what I didn't like (There was far to much stereo widening and the sub had a weird sucking pitch bend at the start) and now I'm hoping he will fix that and send me it back. I'll post examples if the end result sounds good

Some amusing assumptions in this thread.

jonahmann wrote:
Anyway, the sample rate thing appears to be true. 192000 sounds better still.

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/media/3Trade ... 92_kHz.pdf

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/a ... index.html