pow-R dither & mastering ?

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:14 pm

I have been using the pow-R dither on the master fader when bouncing down in PTLE, I have definatly noticed a difference in the audio. Generally I have been using 16 bit & Noise type 1. Do any of you have preferences for the other noise types ?

Is it smarter to use the 20 bit dither when boucing down ?

Secondly I was thinking about this one album I have been working on , Mastering wise , Here is what I had planned

Bouce the mixes in 24 / 48

Import them and master them thru my finalizer and other toys (were are not talking amazing mastering here, just trying to make it sexier ) still sticking in 24/48 , and then bouncing those tracks down in realtime (with the pow-r dither ) to 16 44

Do you think I should go thru this whole mess ?

Or should I just bouce them down to 16 when I finish mixing and then master them at 16 ?

thanks for the help
-gil

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:27 pm

dither should be the absolutely last thing you do.......

keep it 24 bit as long as you can and then dither down to 16 when you're done....... i generally prefer type 2...... although sometimes i use type 1

oh...... and stay away from 48 unless you're doing audio for dvd's or tv.... the rate conversion could really damage your sound..... even with expensive gear.....

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:35 pm

Cool , I generally record at 24 / 48 , should I just do 24 44.1 then, I cant do 96 yet as my digital board doesnt support it (a yammy o1v)

thanks for the heads up

Moderator Joined: Sep 12, 2002 Posts: 1881 Location: NYC

There are plus's and minus's to working at different rates. It also depends on your gear too. It's one of those things you have to play around with and see what works best under these conditions.

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:21 am

Yeah, don't get caught up in the higher is better when it comes to sample rate.

There is still much debate as to weather or not it yields definite improvements.

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:30 am

thanks for all your help guys, My original idea of staying at the highest possible until after mastering is what I am going to try to stick to. If I have to bounce an entire album in realttime down to 1644 thats cool, I get paid by the hour, lol.

anyway thanks for the help

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:47 am

quick note about sample rate (not bit-depth)
48 is useless except for dvd, just go 44.1
now working in 96 can be very nice, but if this is for cd, consider 88.2
i know you already said your system is not capable of it anyway

(i am not a professional like these guys, please keep that in mind)

good luck!

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:43 am

I agree with Brandon and others who are suggesting you skip 48, unless you're doing audio for video projects. The arguable amount of improvement you MIGHT get is compromised by "gearboxing" back down to 44.

24/44 and 24/88 will yield some fantastic results for you, and I'd stick with that bit depth/samplerate until you do a final bounce to 16/44 for CD.

Dither only at the very end, when going down from 24/44 (or 88, etc.) to 16/44. I use pow-R #3, and like it a lot, but your mileage may vary. The Cransong dither is nice, too. I think you can still get it free from their website. Worth trying out, if nothing else.

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:28 pm

Just chiming in - I agree with the samplerate (use the target rate unless there's some particular reason no to), POW-r 3 and Crane Song's "Analog Dither."

And as much of a Crane Song addict I am, I have to admit that I use POW-r 3 more than anything.

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:07 am

Massive Mastering wrote:

Just chiming in - I agree with the samplerate (use the target rate unless there's some particular reason no to), POW-r 3 and Crane Song's "Analog Dither."

And as much of a Crane Song addict I am, I have to admit that I use POW-r 3 more than anything.

Any particular reason for this MM

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:18 am

Any particular reason for this MM

My guess his reason is the same as mine: With it, my 16/44 CD bounces sound damn near identical to the original 24/44 and 24/88 projects.

About the closest of anything else I've heard out there, anyway...

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:10 am

JoeH wrote:

Any particular reason for this MM

My guess his reason is the same as mine: With it, my 16/44 CD bounces sound damn near identical to the original 24/44 and 24/88 projects.

About the closest of anything else I've heard out there, anyway...

Cool, ill have to do a few comparisons.

I normally use type 2, but i will definitely compare a type 2 with a 3.

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:10 am

double post

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:34 am

I too use POW-R's #3 curve most frequently. I like #2 on some stuff - it seems to work best for me on tracks with a lot of high frequency content (cymbals, etc.).

As for sample rate conversion, I rarely rely on computer based sample rate conversion. If I work on a project at 48, 88.1, 96, or higher, I almost always come out of the box during mastering anyway - at which point, I come back in using 44.1. I really like the sound of the Lynx Aurora at 44.1 and I feel that I don't sacrifice much or anything by going this route. Whereas I've had seriously mixed results with software sample rate conversion...

J.

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:16 pm

pingu wrote:

[Any particular reason for this MM

Just seems to most "neutral" for the most part. Lets the lows come through strong and lets the highs be the highs. There's a few dithering options that I "notice" - pow-r 3 doesn't really seem to be one of them.

This topic sponsored by: