mastering on a compu

very good tips, but i have sum remarks:

24bit/192kHz is way too much. i agree for the 24 bit (or even 32 bit) to get the lowest digital noise-level as possible , but 192 is plain overdone. in the professional audioworld the standard is 48 kHz. both for music, television as cinema. 192 is more a commercial feature then a necessary one, since nobody hears frequencies of above 17-18 kHz (only babies can hear 20kHz). the only reason i can think of to use 192 is for samples, if you still want good clear quality when you play the sample on half the speed or less. also mind that 24/192 takes 4 times more cpu-power and ram/discspace than 24/48, which means serious limitations for no reason actually. on top of that comes that only the more expensive soundcards feature 192kHz samplerate (and it's not because these expensive soundcards offer 192, that it is a reason to use it). the place where i'll start to work in august has the latest mac pro's with 3.2Gh 8-core and Protools HD-4, including 4 breakoutboxes that can all drive 32bit/192kHz. still, they always work on 24/48.

dithering is not downgrading the samplerate, but adding noise so you have less digital artefacts with low volumes (because of the digital steps). there are different dither-algoritms, for example powr-dither, which can be inserted as an effect-plugin, or used while rendering to disc.

for the listening: note that you always need to work the same audio-level, since the ear is not lineair for the different frequencies on different volumes. when you play on high volume, you'll hear more bass compared to when you turn the volume down. the only moment that you change the volume is when you wanna check how it sounds on different volumes. in audiopostproduction for film, there are different standards like 85, 82,79 dBspl, but there still isn't such a standard for mixing music. so the best thing to do is to find a level that you are comfortable with, and that represents the music the way you want it to, and then always stick with that level. the best is not to listen too loud, because you'll hear too much bass and will tire your ears very quickly.

about the limiting: what i did with my latest tracks is putting a distortion as last in the chain, to have a hard cut on the fine spikes that come thru. because these spike are inaudible, putting a clipping distortion on it is still inaudible. this way you can have a gain of sometimes 3db. 

Great post!!..there should be more of those..thnaks man!

i use and do all those 8 points but i still cant sing ! but this is really a good list you have wrote here to get the best sound quality out of your system and to produce an good cd ! greets  

Hehe thos are the best tips I heard in one thread! Thx man really appreciate

Originally posted by : firefrog

very good tips, but i have sum remarks:

24bit/192kHz is way too much. i agree for the 24 bit (or even 32 bit) to get the lowest digital noise-level as possible , but 192 is plain overdone. in the professional audioworld the standard is 48 kHz. both for music, television as cinema. 192 is more a commercial feature then a necessary one, since nobody hears frequencies of above 17-18 kHz (only babies can hear 20kHz). the only reason i can think of to use 192 is for samples, if you still want good clear quality when you play the sample on half the speed or less. also mind that 24/192 takes 4 times more cpu-power and ram/discspace than 24/48, which means serious limitations for no reason actually. on top of that comes that only the more expensive soundcards feature 192kHz samplerate (and it's not because these expensive soundcards offer 192, that it is a reason to use it). the place where i'll start to work in august has the latest mac pro's with 3.2Gh 8-core and Protools HD-4, including 4 breakoutboxes that can all drive 32bit/192kHz. still, they always work on 24/48.

Maybe do you need to listen some records in 192Khz or high before say this, because 44 Khz or 48 is very poor in fact, especially for the high. me I 've listen a record on cd and the same on bands in analogic on a Nagra and the difference is simply awesome.

I think than if some suckers use this big shit of protools (I hate it) in 24/48 this is just a proof than the best is to use 24/192 :o)

But is true than work in 192 is very expensive :o( me I don't have 192 at my home.

Thank you, tiger. This really is a good post: not too complicated, structured and clear.

Originally posted by : LeBelgeElectrod 

Maybe do you need to listen some records in 192Khz or high before say this, because 44 Khz or 48 is very poor in fact, especially for the high. me I 've listen a record on cd and the same on bands in analogic on a Nagra and the difference is simply awesome.

I think than if some suckers use this big shit of protools (I hate it) in 24/48 this is just a proof than the best is to use 24/192 :o)

But is true than work in 192 is very expensive :o( me I don't have 192 at my home.[/quote]

first of all, i really don't get your comparison of nagra and cd. nagra sounds so great because of it's preamps, not just because it is analog. second: 48 is not poor at all, the biggest difference between 48 and 192 is in the head. i know a bit how hardware developers think, how hardware is being used by professionals and i have heard both 48 and 192. third: "this big shit of protools" is the platform on which 90% of the sound of movies are edited in, almost always in 48kHz. so how do you call that proof or 192 being so much better? indeed the preamps of the digidesign hardware is not superior, the icon-series all have cheap-feeling knobs and buttons, relinking sounds of big sessions in protools is a bitch, the region list is a joke because it doesn't support subfolders, and indeed they are major ripoffs for not being able to run protools with other than digi's own hardware. but it is a standard, and there is a reason why it is. the same counts for 48kHz.

first of all, i really don't get your comparison of nagra and cd. nagra sounds so great because of it's preamps, not just because it is analog. second: 48 is not poor at all, the biggest difference between 48 and 192 is in the head. i know a bit how hardware developers think, how hardware is being used by professionals and i have heard both 48 and 192. third: "this big shit of protools" is the platform on which 90% of the sound of movies are edited in, almost always in 48kHz. so how do you call that proof or 192 being so much better? indeed the preamps of the digidesign hardware is not superior, the icon-series all have cheap-feeling knobs and buttons, relinking sounds of big sessions in protools is a bitch, the region list is a joke because it doesn't support subfolders, and indeed they are major ripoffs for not being able to run protools with other than digi's own hardware. but it is a standard, and there is a reason why it is. the same counts for 48kHz.

Yes you got a point with this comparaison between Narga and Cd but I can sayd to you than the Cd reader was not a shit, the track that we have listen contain some sound of sine very high and with this we can listen a big difference between the two. If you don't have an equivalence you cannot measure this and to find a track made in analogic on this two materials is not easy.

For me protools is a standard because ...it is a standard, used by many people in the world and simple to understand. But, to make a track with it is very very boring. Maybe it is good for premastering I never have try. Else you have sayd all the points than I don't like in protools. preamp on digidesign are very bad for their price, and what which boring me the most is this boucing in real time (raaaaaaaa !) the ergonomy is also very bad (no zoom with the wheel of the mouse, the possibilty of combinaison with special keys is not intersting...)

so i continue to think that i you have the possibility to work in 192, work in 192.

hahah my nooby question :) thx for the great answer you are a hero 

thx ebellers

for this good review & positive critic !!  don't hesitate 2 question the world (of mastering) a bit further

jay