Skip to main content

pow-R dither & mastering ?

Submitted by anonymous on Mon, 04/17/2006 - 18:14

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

Tags

Comments

iznogood

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.....

Mon, 04/17/2006 - 18:27 Permalink
JoeH

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.

Tue, 04/18/2006 - 10:43 Permalink
anonymous

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.

Wed, 04/19/2006 - 03:10 Permalink
Cucco

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.

Wed, 04/19/2006 - 08:34 Permalink