Should I go with 48KHz or 44KHz to submit for Film

[Casey H]

So I gave it try and in an A/B test there is a small but somewhat noticable improvement in audio quality. It does sound a little cleaner / clearer - a bit more space around the instruments..not so congested in busier sections.

One of the problems with these tests is unless it's a blind test, it's impossible to judge. Knowing which one you are listening to will always cloud your judgement. ("You" being generic "you"). Export 2 mixes and send them to another well trusted producer, unlabeled. See if they can pick which is which.

I've had people who swear they could tell me they can identify which is which on a blind list of various mp3 and wav export resolutions. The results were an interesting study. Same if a producer sends you a new mix with the most minimal change such as a level up .5 db, someone who asked for the change will always say it's better. Or the slightest nudge on an EQ.

Almost 100% of the time, the changes will have zero to do with acceptance for Film/TV sync. Once you get past a certain production/mix quality level, they are listening for everything else. Heck, Cr***l still reviews on 128K mp3.

Casey

[cosmicdolphin]

Export 2 mixes and send them to another well trusted producer, unlabeled. See if they can pick which is which.

I did

He did

[Casey H]

Export 2 mixes and send them to another well trusted producer, unlabeled. See if they can pick which is which.

I did

He did

That's great, good to validate. But stepping back, what's the point? Using either will have zero impact on sync worthiness. It will just make the producer feel better about it.

[Telefunkin]

I am Sparticus!! (the blind tester) . Although the difference was very marginal, one mix seemed cleaner in congested parts.

The point in all of this as I see it is....
- If you feel there's something to be gained by having a pristine production then higher resolution might just help, although the final render is technically the same spec.
- If there are weaknesses elsewhere in writing/arranging/recording/mixing then it won't help at all.
- If you just want to keep libraries happy then send them what they ask for, regardless of how you get there.
- If you want to make life easier for yourself then find the best way to do that whilst avoiding any re-work (e.g. converting files, because they're not what a library accepts, or you got it wrong with the DAW settings).

You might think that last point is trivial because converting files from 44.1kHz to 48kHz (for example) is easy enough. However, it gets tedious if you have to do that for a full mix, several alt mixes, a couple of cut-downs and a sting (say 10 files and about 15 mins of music) - been there, done that. Of course, that's just for 1 track, but if its for a whole album you can multiply by maybe 10 or 12. Also, don't forget to listen through those 3 hours of music yet again just to make sure there are no clicks/pops in any of it . Or you could be writing your next track instead!

That's just my perspective though, and I'm not prescribing to anyone else what their workflow should be. We can all have our own recipe for an easy life, so do what you think works best for you.

[JohnAtonic]

Advice from a professional SSL console recording studio engineer that I've worked with (uses 44k 24bit), says, what is more important is how accurate and stable the WORD Clock in your D/A interface system is

As most of us are producing in the box, the files we deliver are not passing through our own DAC when we bounce them ( only when we listen to them ) so it's a non-issue

Yes

[JohnAtonic]

There is so much more that goes into a good production, 44k vs 48k is the least to be concerned with.

IMHO, not quite. Music libraries will only accept music that meets their production standards, and files that adhere to their specification. I've even seen specs that ask you NOT to convert 44.1khz files to 48kHz but to re-render projects instead. Basically, libraries don't care about my preferences or whether or not I or anyone else can hear the differences, they just want what they want, and as I like an easy life, I do as I'm asked. The simplest way for me to do that is by working at 24-bit 48kHz, and because I render my final versions at those settings for my submissions I often save a bit of re-rendering and re-uploading time too. YMMV.

[....but please don't open the flood gates by asking whether any of us can hear the difference ]

Ok, but how are they ever gonna know that you up sampled?

[cosmicdolphin]

That's great, good to validate. But stepping back, what's the point? Using either will have zero impact on sync worthiness. It will just make the producer feel better about it.

The point is it makes every file I render from this point forward sound a little bit better, for free, and takes no more time, processor overhead or storage space now it's set up. It will just upsample by default from this point forward.

And although you say it will have zero impact on sync worthiness we can't know that for sure. I would argue it will definitely have more than zero impact. If you listen to mixes from high end libraries they are usually 'better' somehow which is likely because they have professional mix or master engineers working on them with better gear. I feel like this gets one step closer.

Mark

[BradleyHagen]

You guys are missing the point here!
Recording at 24/96 just makes you feel like a bigger man!! I swear that I have some kind of fierce big c**k energy and vibe about me after I waste that extra drive space... Just KNOWING that I recorded at 24/96 gives me a certain amount of swagger as I go about my day thereafter!! lol

[Casey H]

You guys are missing the point here!
Recording at 24/96 just makes you feel like a bigger man!! I swear that I have some kind of fierce big c**k energy and vibe about me after I waste that extra drive space... Just KNOWING that I recorded at 24/96 gives me a certain amount of swagger as I go about my day thereafter!! lol

I think Viagra might be cheaper than all the disk space.

[BradleyHagen]

hahahahaha