Acoustica - Software should be easy to use

Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Support and feedback for Acoustica's Mixcraft audio mixing software.

Moderators: Acoustica Dan, Acoustica Greg, Acoustica Chris, Acoustica Eric

User avatar
dpaterson
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:33 am

Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby dpaterson » Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:54 am

Hello (Greg).

As per the subject.

Been doing some research and seems to me this is quite important (see my post here: https://forums.acoustica.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23713#p117449 (toward the middle of the post i.e. save you the time of reading through my musings).

Regards,

Dale.

User avatar
Acoustica Greg
Posts: 19564
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:30 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Acoustica Greg » Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:09 am

Hi,

We haven't had a lot of requests for this (or any at all?), but I can certainly log it as a feature request.

Greg
Mixcraft 8 - The Musician's DAW
Give it a try here: http://acoustica.com/mixcraft/
Check out our Mixcraft University video tutorials.

User avatar
Acoustica Greg
Posts: 19564
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:30 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Acoustica Greg » Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:20 am

Hi,

You'll be recording at those frequencies? Does your audio device support that?

Keep in mind that some plugins don't work correctly at higher sample rates.

Greg
Mixcraft 8 - The Musician's DAW
Give it a try here: http://acoustica.com/mixcraft/
Check out our Mixcraft University video tutorials.

User avatar
dpaterson
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby dpaterson » Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:00 am

Hello.

Well I will NOW i.e. been at 96kHz of late with no problems (quite surprised myself to be honest).

Yeh look. I'm not being difficult. As you may or may not know: I'm getting down to the "nitty gritty" of certain things here now and it would certainly appear based on some research that those sample rates are not simply arbitrary numbers as one (myself included) would have thought. Much the same as in video there are certain "rules" that apply when it comes to aspect ratios etc. etc. etc. (will not detract from the topic here though).

As I've just noted on the other thread: I have a workaround for now (Melda's MRecorder).

And sorry: don't think this was a double post or whatever (didn't think you'd read through my ramblings on the other threads though).

Thanks Greg.

Regards,

Dale.

User avatar
Acoustica Greg
Posts: 19564
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:30 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Acoustica Greg » Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:37 am

Hi,

Do any audio interfaces offer 176.4 kHz recording? I haven't run across one myself.

Greg
Mixcraft 8 - The Musician's DAW
Give it a try here: http://acoustica.com/mixcraft/
Check out our Mixcraft University video tutorials.

User avatar
dpaterson
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby dpaterson » Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:55 am

Hello again.

Good point. Mine doesn't (so I'll settle for just 88.2kHz!!! LOL!!!).

Really don't know i.e. have only ever had M-Audio and now the Focusrites.

Not sure how many people around these parts work at those extreme bitrates (hopefully we'll get some inputs). I know I cannot work at 192kHz because the Focusrite ASIO driver doesn't allow for a buffer larger than 1024.

Never realised until today that it MAY be an issue. Is it something I can hear??? Probably not. Is it something I can visually SEE on a waveform??? Yep. Just proved it. And, well, it makes sense now that I've seen it i.e. at the end of the day these are all bits and bytes are they not and dividing by two (to get from 88.2kHz to CD 44.1kHz) and landing on a round number makes logical and mathematical sense (no rounding or surmising on the part of the encoder). Admittedly: my workflow (with video) has always been to work at a higher resolution and bitrate than your target. That way when you render: you can't lose (if that makes sense) i.e. the total opposite of trying to render to a higher quality from a lower quality source and having to conjure up differences to stitch the thing together. I'm of the opinion that the same applies to audio.

So yeh (unless somebody else gives a reason for 176.4kHz): 88.2kHz would be nice. Make me sleep better anyway (knowing that it's there).

Regards,

Dale.

mick
Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:33 am

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby mick » Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:44 am

Mixcraft will run perfectly at 44.1 4800 88.2 96k 176.4 192k. All you need is an interface that supports these. Just tried all the vst's with no problems with 27 midi tracks running and no jitter/dropouts etc.

There is a usb/direct knob on the M-Audio, if the knob is too far to USB then the jitters appear, midway presents no issues whatsoever.

88.2.PNG
88.2.PNG (49.62 KiB) Viewed 1511 times

User avatar
dpaterson
Posts: 560
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby dpaterson » Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:04 pm

Whoa.

We’re talking about two different things. You can select 88.2kHz for your sound card driver no problem. But you cannot mix down to a file at that sample rate.

Actually I’m to blame for the misunderstanding. Somehow I went off at a tangent with buffer sizes and the like. Sorry. It’s not being able to mix down to WAV for example that’s the issue,

Regards,

Dale.

P.S. You had me going there for a minute. Nearly jumped out of bed to go fire up everything again and plug in ye olde M-Audio and already had a speech ready in my head for Focusrite!!! LOL!!!

mick
Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:33 am

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby mick » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:35 pm

Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down
Ooops! The clue is in the title above! I need to read the subject and concentrate more, thanks for the funny post! :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Thomas
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 2:54 pm

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Thomas » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:11 pm

88.2kHz and 176.4kHz make sense from the point that they are even multiples of 44.1. Supposedly easier computing with less errors and sound artifacts.
There are multiples of 48 all the way to 192. I have read that 48 is used for audio associated with video (DVD?) and 44.1 is the standard for CD. Mixcraft is mainly an audio program so this seems a bit surprising. From my experience with video and photography, I have learned that the higher the quality of the master, the better the quality of the compressed file that comes from it. Wanting to create a master at 88 or 176 for release as a CD seems like a reasonable idea to me. But wait a minute! I just realized that the request was to mix-down to 88 or 176, is that right? Then to CD at that rate? If so, then not sure how that would work or benefit. But creating a 88 or 176 file and mixing down to 44.1 seems beneficial to me.

BTW, my interface seems capable of 88 and 176 sample rate. I can select it in windows and play back the test tones through my UMC404. The UMC404 driver also indicates those sample rates in the driver UI. Not I have just confirmed they are available through Mixcraft.
176 Sample Rate.PNG
176 Sample Rate.PNG (32.97 KiB) Viewed 1471 times
Tom Was Already Taken, Therefore Thomas
Mixcraft 8 Pro Studio 64-Bit
Windows 10 64-Bit
AMD Athlon II X4 645 3.1 GHz 10GB Ram 7200RPM HDD
Behringer UMC404HD v4.59 interface

User avatar
Acoustica Greg
Posts: 19564
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:30 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Acoustica Greg » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:17 pm

Hi,

Well, there you go. Do you find yourself wanting to use those sample rates?

Greg
Mixcraft 8 - The Musician's DAW
Give it a try here: http://acoustica.com/mixcraft/
Check out our Mixcraft University video tutorials.

User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 6523
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Out there

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Mark Bliss » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:23 pm

:o (Yawn)
I dont.
Stay in tune, Mark

Image

My SOUNDCLOUD Page

User avatar
Thomas
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 2:54 pm

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Thomas » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:09 pm

"Do you find yourself wanting to use those sample rates?"

Maybe for mastering for the purpose of publishing to CD format, but probably not for "mix down to audio file".
Tom Was Already Taken, Therefore Thomas
Mixcraft 8 Pro Studio 64-Bit
Windows 10 64-Bit
AMD Athlon II X4 645 3.1 GHz 10GB Ram 7200RPM HDD
Behringer UMC404HD v4.59 interface

User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 6523
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Out there

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Mark Bliss » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:30 pm

Alright, my computer got hot working on a mix and I am taking a break to let it cool a bit. (48K if it matters BTW. :wink: )

First off, forget about the "divides equally into" myth. I am sure the folks who continue to believe and repeat this mean well for the most part, but it simply doesn't work that way. It is easy to see why the fallacy seems to make sense, but its simply not true.

As to the rest of this, If one was recording in a million dollar studio, choosing from a mic locker filled with the best mics ever made and capturing AAA talent.... using converters that cost more than my car...….
24 bit and 96K (Or whatever) might make sense at the input side. Even if only in theory and you cant hear a bit of difference, capturing a recording in that way might seem only prudent. But we ain't recording Paul Simon at Ocean Way on a vintage U-47 valued at $15K.
But if you were.... once in the DAW, it isn't going to be improved as far as sampling rate coming out the other end. It is as good as its gonna get in that respect. Converting through D/A converters and back for external mastering probably realistically does more harm (however slight) than using more practical sampling rates. And FWIW, the bit rate is probably about ten times more important than the sampling rate anyway.
I am almost always set to 48K 24 bit going in, and I sometimes archive at the same. Primarily because it works smoothly with my various gear and plug ins. Some might find 44.1 works better for them for various reasons. File sizes are reasonable and sound quality is as good as its going to get with home/project studio grade equipment. I've worked with projects full of 96K files and its a nonsensical headache every time.

I chased this stuff as I learned, and I completely respect the zeal and intense interest in the technical stuff, but trust me, this is one of the worst rabbit hole wastes of time in the whole realm of ITB mixing and producing. There's a thousand things FAR more important as to your results IMO. In fact, this is a qualifier for the least important I think.

Now back to work. 8)
Stay in tune, Mark

Image

My SOUNDCLOUD Page

User avatar
Ian Craig
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:15 pm
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
Contact:

Re: Why no 88.2kHz and 176.4kHz Sample Rates available for Mix Down

Postby Ian Craig » Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:35 pm

Mark Bliss wrote:First off, forget about the "divides equally into" myth. I am sure the folks who continue to believe and repeat this mean well for the most part, but it simply doesn't work that way. It is easy to see why the fallacy seems to make sense, but its simply not true. ...
...And FWIW, the bit rate is probably about ten times more important than the sampling rate anyway.
...I've worked with projects full of 96K files and its a nonsensical headache every time.
...I chased this stuff as I learned, and I completely respect the zeal and intense interest in the technical stuff, but trust me, this is one of the worst rabbit hole wastes of time in the whole realm of ITB mixing and producing. There's a thousand things FAR more important as to your results IMO.


Well put Mark.
Let me add a picture of reality here myself. I always liked music after 1968. I found the sound prior to that muddy or tinny. They had just started proper multi-tracking and stereo records had only generally begun to be released about 2 years earlier and mixing was clearly finding new problems it had to deal with, as fast as listeners were finding new exciting sounds to listen to. Anyway, last year I found six stems on Youtube of the Led Zeppelin track 'Ramble On' from Led Zeppelin II, released in 1968, so obviously it was recorded on 8 track equipment. I found a couple of phrases on the guitar were missing so they must have been on the other 2 tracks, so I managed to re-record them well enough for them to go unnoticed on the track, which I was then free to (basically) mess around with, so I tried to get it to sound like the original as a good place to start. There was a problem though. It sounded like the tapes they came from had deteriorated very badly with age or whatever. Then I remembered what Led Zeppelin I sounded like - Mud (not the band Mud either, by the way). It wasn't tape deterioration at all. The tracks sounded like that when they were recorded. I found I had to add nearly 20dB to the upper mid range (I think it was around that frequency range anyway) to get the tracks to sound the way they did on the LP or downloads etc. 20dB ??? It seems that Jimmy Page and Eddie Kramer (the engineer) worked to get it to sound like that (Note: Lots of very expensive Eddie Kramer plugins produced by 'Waves' are out there, designed to get the sound - the sound that then became the bright sonic standard of records going into the 1970s that replaced the mud preceding it, except that after doing this getting the sound of the record back into the stems effectively means that I don't need them anyway). ...
Sorry, for Rambling on :wink: but my point is this. All this headroom and sample rate question business is irrelevant, put into the perspective of 2 people going far beyond standard practise to actually fix the sound that everyone had failed to notice was shite and needed fixing :lol: , when they suddenly had access to a whole 8 tracks of tape to record stuff on. Also, you may have noticed the rise in saturation effects to emulate analogue tape that was binned off when the 12 bit Fairlight came along and Mellotron went out of business for a few years. Also CDs, most people don't even bother with them anymore. ... I have paid lots of money for the GForce M-Tron Proplugin, which contains many many banks of mellotron tapes, I've also paid a lot of money for the UVI Dark Light II sample bank plus type thing to get sounds pulled from the Fairlight. If anyone listens to what I do with these sounds they would have no idea that the sounds come from 50 year old tape banks or (sometimes I believe) recordings using bit rates as low as 4 bit. Hardware synths and samplers used Reverb, delays and filters etc. to cover over the sound problems caused by their Inadequacies. Also, sound restoration tools use noise (white, pink or brown, in the case of iZotope RX6 Advanced's Spectral De-Noise) to mask other noise in the process of effective noise reduction, so as it's often a masking process, all of this stuff is irrelevant. I will end with this - Beware all these new standards, they will be ridiculed in 5 minutes time (Neutron Advanced proves the point, it's crap :wink: ). :lol:
...
Mixcraft 8 Pro Studio Build 418 (64bit)
AMD Ryzen 8 Core 3.0 GHz,
2TB SSD etc, 40GB RAM,
Windows 10 Professional
Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 (1st Gen, USB2).


Return to “Mixcraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests