VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

Bruce

I'm sure we've discussed this before, but Lord knows things coulda changed again in the past few months.

What is, or soon will be, the most common and accepted sample size and sample rate for AIF, WAV and MP3 files?

I've been sending out AIF and WAV formats as 16 bit and 44.1 kHz when no one specifies any differently which is 95% of the time, and MP3's at 160 kbps and 44.1 kHz virtually all the time.

Since conversion is a bit of a pain for outgoing files, and a real pain when I try to import 16/44.1 music and SFX into software set for 24/48.0, I'm trying to think ahead and avoid unnecessary conversion convulsions.

Your thoughts and prognostications welcome.

B
_________________
VO-BB Member #31 Enlisted June, 2005

I'm not a Zoo, but over the years I've played one on radio/TV. .

Frank F · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:43 am Post subject:

Chef Bruce,

Normally I do .wav/.aiff at 16 bit, 44.100 kHz. However, if I know what type of DAW will be used or if it is for video I up the ante to 16/48 or 24/48 mono for VO.

When converting to .mp3, most of the time I just do the usual 16 bit, 44.1 kHz, 128 kbps, mono file. This is the default bit rate for .mp3 mono. I cannot get a bit rate higher unless I convert to two track mono.

If using a two track mono (quasi stereo) file sometimes I up it to 160 kbps. Rarely do I have a request for a 48 kHz .mp3 - when I do convert 48 kHz files to .mp3 the audio default and highest rate mono file I can deliver is 128 kbps.

Does that help at all??????

Toodles

F2
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:45 am Post subject:

The end result is only as good as your source. In a perfect world, record and work in the highest quality your equipment allows (within reason) and then convert down to the standard 16/44 unless the client specifes otherwise.

But really, can anyone tell the difference between 44.1 and 48kHz in a dry voice track? I seriously doubt it. I'm sure if you record in 44.1 the client will never know if you upconvert to to 48 at their request.

Might want to bump the MP3s to 192 or 256 since that's the higher quality that a lot of places are adopting, including iTunes.
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

bobsouer · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:21 am Post subject:

Jeff,

The main reason for doing a voice track at 48K rather than 44.1K is because much of the video world works at 48 rather than 44.1 and it saves conversion and/or importing time. It's not a sonic quality issue, it's a compatibility issue.
_________________
Be well,
Bob Souer (just think of lemons)
The second nicest guy in voiceover.
+1-724-613-2749
ISDN, Source Connect, phone patch

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:24 am Post subject:

very good point, Bob. True, DVDs are all encoded at 48kHz, 192kbps I believe.
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Frank F · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:34 am Post subject:

The only reason iTunes is upping bit rate is so that they look like they are more exclusive than other audio services.

It's all in the packaging... it's all in the packaging.

Also, if you think about it 192 kbps (or three stereo channels) is just three channels of 48 kbps stereo inside a "wrapper". A ;ow frequency channel, and a center channel make up the fourth stereo pair;to equal 192 kbps.

The magic of marketing and those who believe the hype never ceases to amaze me. Please remember: "....The more the hype, the less the truth".

Toodles

F2
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

todd ellis · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject:

and THAT, my friends, is why frank is my hero!
_________________
"i know philip banks": todd ellis
who's/on/1st?

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject:

I'm not understanding, Frank. Isn't 192kbps just 2 channels, joint stereo?
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Frank F · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject:

No, the 192 kbps file is the surround sound channel (usually AC3). There is also a standard file which is decoded as stereo - this may be .wav or coded .mp3.

There is a new coding on BlueRay (and some current commercial DVD's) which allows for only the 192 kbps file to be decoded and then a simulated stereo file is played.

Additionally, if there are language translations for the DVD, additional 256 kbps (128 kbps per channel) files recorded at 24 bit, 48 kHz would be included for stereo or 128 kbps ,mp3 for mono.

Does that explain things a bit better?

Toodles

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

TheVoiceOfBob · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject:

But the original signal would have to be encoded AC3 correct? If you record at 192 stereo in, you are going to get 192 stereo out.
_________________
Try to imagine a world where there is no such thing as hypothetical situations.

The Voice of Bob

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject:

That's what I thought, too, Bob. And what if someone encodes at 192kbps mono (if such a thing is possible)?
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Lance Blair · M&M Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 2279 Location: Atlanta

In my taste tests, recording at 48k/24bit or even 44/24bit and downconverting to 44/16 will sound better than starting at 44/16.

96/24 seemed to be diminishing returns on a mono voice. For a full multitrack session of music, I'd definitely go for the highest resolution posible.
_________________
Skype: globalvoiceover
and now, http://lanceblairvo.com the blog is there now too!

Frank F · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject:

No, you are likely to be recording at 24 bit 96 kHz, as a .wav or .aiff. From the original recording it will up-converted to a higher resolution than what most consumers are familiar - .mp3 or AC3.

I have; to date... only once recorded at 24 bit, 192 kHz... and I still do not know why.

So far, I have Mastered 24 "Feature Length Films" and numerous other project including a whole bunch of retail HD DVD's. So what do I know?

Toodles

F2
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

TheVoiceOfBob · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:

Frank,
Not doubting you at all, believe me! I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it technically.

I'm thinking that if the source is X, then you can never get more than X out of it. If it's not encoded surround, you can only decode it to the limit of the encoding. You can simulate something more, but that's all.
_________________
Try to imagine a world where there is no such thing as hypothetical situations.

The Voice of Bob

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject:

me too. It's tough parting the technical truth from the common perceptions. Thanks for being patient with us, Frank.
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com