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

Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:06 pm

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

Postby aj113 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:00 am

dpaterson wrote:...Apparently people a long time ago thought that the world was flat. That was the theory at the time which was accepted as fact at the time...
No, that was just whjat some people believed. It wasn't a scientific theory. Like some people believe in the existence fairies - fine, but just because they have this belief, doesn't make it true.

Which brings me to a point I was trying to make yesterday (and I throw this out merely for the sake of debate i.e. I'm by no means saying that the theory, which apparently is accepted as fact, is incorrect):

did the professionals just learn all of this stuff during the course of their studies and they simply perform their duties within the confines of what is accepted as fact or have they indeed sat down with some gear and managed to get some visual representation and audible confirmation of these theories???

Yes of course. That is the point of a scientific theory. It's tried and tested on multiple levels and on multiple occasions, and peer-reviewed - i.e. it's proven. If it hasn't gone through this rigourous process and achieved general consensus amongst the scientific community as a result, it's not a theory.

User avatar
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 » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:37 am


All points noted. Thank you.

Like some people believe in the existence fairies

Yeh. I know one or two people like that!!! LOL!!!

I just found this:

NOW things are starting to get some perspective.

I know it's a link to an old version of RX (RX 5 actually) but the new version (RX 7) does have this module (from the standard version up). In just reading the info. on that page a lot of things sort of just "fell into place" for me. I now find myself wondering if the degradation or differences I'm finding when downsampling are not possibly due to the quality of the converters that I've been using (well: I've just downsampled using only Mixcraft which I'm pretty sure isn't applying any filters when downsampling)??? I found this because I was re-reading that stuff about applying low pass filters. Problem is: none of the software I have goes as high as 44.1kHz (assuming a project rate of 88.2kHz). Melda's MBandPass (which I erroneously referred to as MFilter in a previous post) only allows a low pass filter up to 20kHz and FabFilter's Pro-Q 2 only goes up to 30kHz. Of course and as luck would have it: it's probably one of the few iZotope products that I DO NOT own (I have RX 6 Elements that came with something or the other and doesn't have the module) and I'm not sure at this time if I can honestly in my heart of hearts justify spending $299 just to prove a point (or to prove a THEORY that I have!!! LOL!!!).

All of the above being said: I'm sure starting to lean toward my idea of re-recording with two interfaces (either digital to analog and back to digital or using SPDIF/ADAT). This would accomplish the same thing. It's a question of which is more accurate i.e. leave it to the converters in the hardware or leave it up to software.



P.S. Anybody seen this and/or used this crowd:

P.P.S. Mr. Ian Craig (who is very silent of late). You've got RX 6. Care to do an experiment??? LOL!!!

P.P.P.S. Anybody know if Ozone 8 Advanced applies any filters when you save to another, lower, sample rate in the standalone version???

P.P.P.P.S. They're obviously alright i.e. this found on iZotope's OWN site:

Not sure I like the idea of having to have some other app. open just to run the software but there it is I guess. Dunno. Will see.

User avatar
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 Oct 23, 2018 9:30 am

Matter of interest Mr. Greg:

How does Mixcraft handle dithering when downsampling??? Seems like dithering is a little bit of science on its very own.

Found this today (best explanation of dithering I've come across):


For anyone else (still) interested in this thread:

I downloaded and installed the trial version of iZotope RX7 to check out the resampling methdology. After mucking about with it it became clear to me that it's not something I need as I have Sound Forge Pro 12 which seems to have the same, if not better, options for downsampling.

I also took another look at the site I noted above i.e. "Splice". Interesting. Seems like it's not just a way to buy software and pay it off. Take a looky here:



P.S. Sorry. Forgot to add the below (this just in case you're NOT sick of the topic at hand already!!! LOL!!!). It's a nice, albeit rudimentary, summary of most of what has been discussed (ad infinitum or ad nauseum) (whichever you prefer) here (and funny thing is I can verify all that's being said!!! LOL!!!):


User avatar
Acoustica Greg
Posts: 19138
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:30 pm
Location: California

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

Postby Acoustica Greg » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:50 am


The developers think dithering is a scam. No dithering.

Mixcraft 8 - The Musician's DAW
Give it a try here:
Check out our Mixcraft University video tutorials.

User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 6326
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 Oct 23, 2018 10:31 am

The "filtering" in the context of conversion is something built into the anti-aliasing filter of the DAC, not something you apply.
The videos at the end of your last post appear to give a pretty good outline of the conversion process. Havent made it to many of the other links and references.
The only way to avoid the subtle errors (Approximations) of conversion, if one is to obsess over such things..... is to not convert sample rates any more than necessary.

Dithering: I knew we would get there sooner or later :lol:
I suspect your mastering software has options for dithering, as do some limiter plug ins, if you wish to waste even more time on something.
*Dithering seems to matter more to people who used DAC's 20 years ago, and people who sell mastering software. People who know and make converters seem to largely agree that it is completely unecessary with modern converter designs.
My opinion- Adding noise you cant hear, to "fix" a mathmatical issue or "theory" that results in a solution you cant hear..... Isnt worth much of my time.
One of the previously mentioned mentors suggests this simple test:
Master two versions of a song, identical except one is dithered. Chop it into sections and have someone reassemble so you have no knowledge of which is which. Play it back on any system. Can you identify any of the changes?

And lastly, FWIW: My most current texts dont call it Nyquests "Theory" or "theorom" but instead "Nyquests Criteria"
And any math formula from the time of telegraph and early telephone technology that not only still holds up, but has been shown to be quite a solid solution in this time of high speed computing..... Shouldnt be ignored too quickly. 8)
Stay in tune, Mark



User avatar
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 Oct 23, 2018 12:01 pm

Problem is: none of the software I have goes as high as 44.1kHz (assuming a project rate of 88.2kHz)

Take a look at Fabfilter's Volcano 2. If I'm reading it right, the filter goes from ~5 Hz to ~75 kHz.
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
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 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:17 am

Good morning folks.

Thanks for the posts.

Yeh look. It seems that nobody is going to agree on what's best and what's not (and by nobody I mean the audio fraternity at large i.e. not just my good friends over here). I mean to say: I was watching some more videos last night and happened to watch that video that Thomas posted some time ago here i.e. Andrew Scheps' "Lost In Translation ..." as well as Andrew Scheps' lecture at the Red Bull Music Academy (have included the links below for the sake of completeness). He talks again about higher sampling rates and bit depths and even mentions artists that want their stuff streamed at ridiculous sampling rates and bit depths. Then I found two fantastic videos (links also below) that basically destroy all that's said (one by none other than Mr. Ethan Winer). It is nevertheless fascinating to see just how all this stuff works and hangs together and why.

I will say this though: the more I delve into all of this the more questions I come up with and I'm really and truly thinking about asking Andrew if he'd be prepared to entertain either a one-on-one video call or answering some specific questions via email. I'm prepared to pay for the privilege (cost dependent of course and within reason). My curiosity is now beyond sample rates and bit depths though. From watching these videos and given the various directions this thread has taken: I'm pretty happy to accept that there's no reason to record at high sample rates and bit depths and I think the actual recording process should be addressed and I have many questions. I'm pretty happy to compile a list of your questions and mine and to put them to him. I'll let you all know if this is going to happen.

I have to say though: ONE thing that he does mention are "reverb tails" and those are the very things that I can hear disappearing at lower sample rates (as I've noted many times). If nothing else it kinda made me feel good to hear!!! LOL!!!

Now to the videos.

THIS one explains this whole lot in a way that an "old timer" (never ever thought I'd see the day that I said that especially in public) like me can actually understand i.e. the stuff is tested and proved on ye olde oscilliscope etc. and MUCH is explained (included, for example, the misrepresentation of "steps") (which also made me feel good because I was pretty much guessing when this was initially discussed and, well, turns out I was right, as was aj113). The ONLY thing I would like to have seen is for the chap to turn the frequency being generated to ABOVE 22 050kHz so that I could see what happens. Anyways. Fantastic video.

Now here's one by none other by Ethan Winer. Fanstastic and entertaining as well.

Thanks to these videos I think I've actually figured out why, when nulling my different files at different sample rates, I'm actually hearing SOUND as opposed to artefacts. I think the reason is because of QUANTIZATION errors. In other words: as a part of the downsampling process the waveform is being shifted which, essentially, is moving the two signals out of phase. So when downsampling and then nulling: you're actually hearing the phase differences. Once those two files are perfectly aligned then and only then will you actually hear the artefacts ONLY (if any i.e. this I still need to prove).

But yeh. The above is pretty much academic really. Interesting but academic.

In closing (this post) here's the links to Andrew's videos:




Return to “Mixcraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 24 guests