Hey, thanks for tuning in. We've had a crazy-busy month and I want to thank everybody for putting the word out...

A couple of quick things... Next month I'm going to try sending the newsletter as an HTML email (you're looking at it -ed note). What this means to you is it will arrive as an email that looks cool and is easier to read but will still be available for public consumption at this web address. It's mostly just an aesthetic change but wanted to give you a heads up.

This month's interview has been slightly postponed as I've got 2 cool interviews lined up but haven't had the opportunity to conduct either one of them yet... Patience is a virtue... it will be worth the wait and I anticipate it will just be a week late (it never happened -ed note).

Once again, still waiting on the official SBD site launch... I swear it will be up in some form or another by the end of this month.

I know I've spent a lot of blog space and time on various aspects of mixing and mastering... but this month I wanted to add a couple of things that I've noticed lately.

1. Dedicated A/D D/A converters are great but make sure you're syncing them to whatever software program you're using. For example, if you're using an Apogee converter in concert with a Digi 002, make sure the converter's sample rate is the same as the sessions. This is not done automatically... you have to tell the converter what the output is... otherwise you get a strange fuzzy, prickily noise in the high end... It's very annoying and you might not hear it on lesser speakers but unfortunately it will be loud and clear in the mastering stage. Also, make sure the converter slaves to your software...

2. I've said it before and I'll say it again... really listen to edit points in your sessions. If the fade is sloppy or non-existant you will hear it in the form of clicks and pops. You may think it's minor, but this stuff becomes very noticiable in the mastering stage.

3. If you hear a click or pop and there's no edit point... Check your plug-ins... sometimes this is an indication of clipping the input/output of your plug-in on a track. Look for red lights... the solution is obvious.

4. If you're planning on mastering a collection of songs but only have a few done (mixed) so far, it's best to wait until ALL the songs are done before you begin mastering. This will help preserve the continuity and consistency between tracks.

I'm sure I'll think of more immediately after posting this... To be continued.

"Most of the time for my recordings I use 44khz/16bits. I make rock n roll music only. Should I use 96khz/24bits? I don't really understand what the usefullness is of such a high frequency when all CDs are 44/16 anyway."

A quick refresher on digital audio: Khz represents the frequency range (humans hear between 20 hz- 20khz... most peeps less than that). Standard CD audio is 44.1 khz because a Bell engineer working on telegraphs theorized that a waveform must be sampled twice in order to get a true representation (hence, the Nyquist theory). Since 44.1 khz is more than double the best human hearing, a CD sampling-rate standard was born.

Bits represent amplitude (volume). Each bit represents 6 db of dynamic range. The bit resolution of a system defines the dynamic range. Without getting in to much more detail, the net result of using higher bits is better clarity and fidelity. You should always record and work in 24 bit (if you've got the hard drive space). As long as a 24 bit source is dithered when converting down, you will still maintain a higher degree of fidelity than if you had only started with 16 bits. On this point, all mastering engineers and techni-freaks agree.

Frequency is a different story and one with plenty of active debate. First off, It doesn't matter what kind of music you're making... my personal opinion is to work in either 44.1 khz or 88.2 khz because 48/96 can cause destructive transcoding (depending on the software algorithm and power of your processor) whenever you reduce the rate to 44.1 khz. Meaning, whatever benefits you obtain by using higher sampling rates (that are not even multiples) are negated by the rounding off that occurs during conversion. Now there are plenty of engineer geeks who will debate me on the merits of 88.2 khz too... and like I said, the verdict is still out, but one thing everybody agrees on... stick to 44.1 khz and things will be just fine.

A brief word on the industry's drive for higher sampling rates... The prevailing thought from the mastering community regarding the quality of higher sampling rates is not that the extra bandwidth is somehow positively affecting the sampled audible range of human hearing, but that the quality of the converters designed to capture higher rates is that much better. For exp: a $3000 converter (that will remain unmentioned) sounds measurably better at 44.1khz than does a $200 converter (also unnamed) at the same sampling rate.

In short, don't worry about using higher sampling rates (above 44.1khz), focus on good recordings and better converters.