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

[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.

[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

[Casey H]

Some guys are secure enough in their masculinity that they don't need to upsample or record at 96.

Seriously, I did misunderstand what Mark was doing, not realizing it took very little additional disk space. If it sounds better, why not? Mark did send me 2 files for a blind test and even my terrible 70 year old ears, on modest monitors, noticed a slight improvement on the right one. It still probably wouldn't make or break a submission IMHO but for no cost, why not?

Happy Upsample Memorial Day,
Casey

[BradleyHagen]

OK OK OK!!! I will open my next session at 48K!!!! But it will be Casey's fault if my wife starts to complain! lol

[JohnAtonic]

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

Because you just told us all on a public forum . Seriously, do whatever you think is right for you, your workflow and your customers.

Personally, I try to respect my customers' requests by giving then what they ask for, rather than doing whatever I can get away with. Sometimes that has to be balanced with what makes most sense for me, but using 10% more disk space seems a small price to pay when external hard drives are relative inexpensive, flipping a DAW switch takes no effort, and avoiding re-work is an efficiency win.

And if further up-sampling as part of the render process can gives a further quality gain (as Mark claims) then why not try it? You might get the same thrill as Bradley as an unexpected bonus (did I spell that correctly? ).

Now the whole world knows Hey yeah I'm not saying that I'm against using 48k, and since I now know why it is used for film/tv/video, I will use it for taxi listings when a deal offer comes. The other thing is, there will still be upsampling happening indirectly because any sampled instruments out of my box are not 48k, so there is no way to totally avoid upsampling. Take care!