Hey everybody,

I have recorded my songs in 24-bit, and as the last part of the process, as I am mastering, I am also using a 'UV22HR' plugin to convert into 16 as I create the WAV files. At least that's my understanding.  However, I'm reading now that I should mix to the same bit rate as my session was recorded in. 

I'm a newbie to this process, so I'd love to learn.  Do I mix it in 24 bit, then re-import it to use this plugin to convert to 16? Does the extra step matter or is it ok to do it in the initial mastering step? It's hard for me to hear the difference right now but I want to do this step correctly.

Thanks for any input.

The new Steinberg interface supports 32 bit integer recording. I am curious if this can be expected to be a bit improvement over 24 bit. Im an the market for a higher end interface to transfer a ton of old tapes and records, as well as record and mix new stuff. I wonder if its worth holding off until there are more interface options, and higher dynamic range numbers, in the realm of 32bit tracking.

Im also wondering if I'm confusing what a 32bit integer interface means, and the audio isn't actually tracked at 32bit.

Hey, I've noticed a couple of the new interface units employing 32 bit adda comverters (RME Adi-2 pro, sound devices mix-6).

Just wondering if there were any benefits of any kind, and what the 32 vs. 24 bit depths means in an adda context in general.

From what little I could find it seems to be one of those things not directly audible. Either I'm curious since it seems the bit rates aren't going to go lower anytime soon.

Ok im. confused...
My mastering engineer sent me a 16 bit wav file...I sent this to CDbaby for distribution. CD baby ask for a 16 bit wav file and no other format.
In conversation with the mastering engineer over Facebook chat.
He has said that i shouldn't of sent the 16 bit wav file out for digital release because it was meant for audio CD replication and will be too loud.

I'm really confused because i thought there was no difference in the 16 bit wav file whether it be for replication or to be converted/encoded by music stores to mp3?

Am i missing something or has the mastering engineer messed up and creates a mix too hot and is now trying to change the file ?

Thanks
Gaz

Found this an interesting read on mixing & mastering at 96kHz and thought it would be worth sharing.

http://www.ryanschwabe.com/blog/96k
 

Hi, I'm very interested in getting the Apogee 96k mic to use when using my new 128 g iPad mini, however I would like to know what other options are out there that may work for me. I've already got an Apogee One which has a guitar input as well as a XLR mic input which will allow me to use a non USB microphone with my iPad so I've been considering purchasing an audio technics AT 2035 as a more affordable option as well. I also have a ZOOM Q2HD handy cam with a nice built in mic and this little unit can be used as a USB mic for recording. So, alas, I guess my biggest question is this: I can afford the MIC96k, I've got a few other pieces of gear already, I'm going to be recording acoustic guitars and vocals into garage band on my 128 g iPad mini and I want the best sound quality and simplest set up possible. What would you folks do? Buy an Apogeemic 96k, buy an Audio-Technica at2035 or something similar to use with my Apogeeone, or simply use my zoom q2HD as a usb mic? Thank you, Darcy

I was putting the beginnings of a mix together this morning, working with the drum tracks.

The kick and snare are both live - the kick is an ancient Ludwig 22" from the 60's; it looks like it's been run over by a truck, but it sure still sounds good. ;) ( I have three vintage snares, a '68 Black Beauty, a '71 Suprasonic, and a Rogers wood snare).

Anyway, I was in the process of choosing a compressor/gate for the kick, and when going to choose a VSTi, I accidentally opened up my old 32 bit Waves Diamond Bundle. I figured while I was in there, I'd give one of the old plugs a shot, just for fun, because I haven't used them in a long time, ( since going 64 bit, that's what I usually use for processing, but because Samplitude plays so well with 32-bit legacy type processing, it opened immediately, without a hitch), so, I chose the R-Channel (mono). I used to use this particular plug often, back when I was still in XP/Pro Tools/Sonar land.

It took me a few seconds to remember where the GR and Gate settings on the R-Channel were, LOL...but after I found them, I dialed up some quick settings, and not only did it not sound bad, it actually sounded really good.
I was very happy with the result. R-Channel is pretty transparent, it doesn't add any real character to speak of, but for this song, and for that kick track, it sounded really good.

The moral to the story... LOL... don't get rid of those old plugs. Some of them still work and sound fine, and occasionally they can even sound great... And you never know when one of those older 32 bit Waves plugs can be just what the sonic doctor ordered. ;)

FWIW

-d.

Greetings all,

At some point I will be sending my cubendo mix to a mixer working in Pro Tools, and will probably render all VSTis etc. to 24 bit wavs. Ideally I would like to send bounced versions of the original vocal recordings for the vocal tracks so as to have any and all processing done by the mixer at that stage. However the mixer cannot spend time tuning vocals so I will be doing this myself which adds a step of processing in the vocal tracks I will be sending out. So the question is what should I be rendering these melodyne edits to: 32 bit or 24 bit? Is there a general consensus on this?
Secondly, the levels of the original recordings vary widely in a few comped sections (an error of sorts), well beyond what you would leave compression to sort-out: Would I be best off doing any gain changes in melodyne so as to present a normal file, or would it not be best to do only the most minimal pitch/time changes and leave the engineer to sort out all levels, that would have the benefit that in parts (where not melodyned) I would still be presenting the original untouched vocal recordings. I could also set the various event levels and these may well carry over to the pro tools session. All the above in the interest of the quality of the final result. I have found various posts that are similar bit none that hit the mark.

A.C.

test 320Kbps

http://recording.or…

An interesting read on 96k vs. 44.1k sample rates and up sampling.

http://www.timdolbe…"]Tim Dolbear's Sound Advice: 96k vs. 44.1k sample rates, my real life test.[/]="http://www.timdolbe…"]Tim Dolbear's Sound Advice: 96k vs. 44.1k sample rates, my real life test.[/]