48KHz vs. 44KHz

[Babaluma]

an age old debate: i have been told that i should record at at least 48KHz and then downsample to 44KHz at the end only for CD writing. however i usually just record at 44KHz. everything i record is 32bit floating point. this means that when i come to write a CD all i have to do is dither down to 16bit.

do the extra 4000 samples a second REALLY make a difference, when we are already talking about over 44,000? and surely downsampling can result in it's own nasty artifacts at times?

should i make the switch to recording everything at 48KHz?

i know poeple will say "use your ears", and i have and don't really notice a difference, but then my room and monitors are hardly the best out there.

tia,

gregg.

[Mr. Dipity]

an age old debate: i have been told that i should record at at least 48KHz and then downsample to 44KHz at the end only for CD writing.

Who told you that? Smack them for me.

however i usually just record at 44KHz. everything i record is 32bit floating point. this means that when i come to write a CD all i have to do is dither down to 16bit.

You aren't recording at 32bit. You are recording at 24 bit and placing it in a 32 bit file. Save yourself the space, record at 24bit.

Only bother 32 bit float when you are destructively editing a file, like in sound forge, and then only if you are doing a >lot< of editing - like sound design for an example.

do the extra 4000 samples a second REALLY make a difference, when we are already talking about over 44,000? and surely downsampling can result in it's own nasty artifacts at times?

should i make the switch to recording everything at 48KHz?

No. Only use 48khz for projects that are going out at 48khz, or 96khz (upsamples better, too). This means broadcast television and dvds.

If you are recording for tv, you might was well record everything in 8 bit mono - the end result is going to sound like ass in any case. j/k

i know poeple will say "use your ears", and i have and don't really notice a difference, but then my room and monitors are hardly the best out there.

Who told you you should record at 48? Come on... We won't hurt them... much....

[handinjury]

Intresting, i do all my recording @ 48/24. I did some drum recording@ 96 but didnt see a huge differance (plus im pretty sure you cant record @ 96 via digi 002 using the adat port) but i thought whats the sence if i have to dither down to 44/16 to burn a cd anyway? Dosent recording @ 96 take up more space as apossed to 48? So i just stayed w/ the 48/24 setting.
It would be sweet if thery could make 24 bit cds.

[spankenstein]

Yeah those 24bit CDs... man they could be 8 bits louder! It's really dismal that the comparatively huge dynamic range on CDs over vinyl get so squished to nothingness to be loud... ok... rant off.

It's my understanding that it's best to record in the target sample rate or a multiple of it. So if you're going to be on CD then 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 would all be good. I had done some tests doing 96kHz instead of 44.1kHz. It sounded better to me while I was playing it back but once I dithered it to CD it wasn't a huge enough benefit for the disk space and additional CPU usage.

[AnalogElectric]

I x-fer tracks in from my 2" 24 track at 44.1kHz/32 bit float on Nuendo. It's because a conversation I've had with other engineers and producers in town. Personally I can't tell the difference between 44.1K and 48kHz... I never could even back when I mixed to DAT that supported 48kHz. I do hear a difference between 16bits and 24bits. The 32bit (float) is more for certain plug-in headroom. When I make a "for mastering" disc the mastering guru's I know want it to be 44.1kHz/24bit (and they want to know if I'm using any 2 mix comp/lim.

So to sum up, I do 44.1kHz/32bit float then for Audio Mixdown I either do aiff or wav at 44.1kHz/24bit for the mastering engineer and listen copies for the band at 44.1kHZ/16bits (just so they can play it anywhere-duh) but with the disclaimer that it's UNMASTERED.

Okay yeah you COULD do 48kHz, hell you COULD do 192kHz if you wanted to (if you have such hardware to support it). I am an analog nut, up until 4 months ago, so I guess take what I've said for what it's worth. I think the only difference between this person/that person is I'm NOT using the 'puter to record the initial tracks. I import tracks from my 2" 24 track and mix hybrid.

For initial tracking (if it be fully digital) then I'd look for the most headroom as possible especially if you mic/mic pre-amp collection isn't the greatest. But what if your hard drive isn't as good to keep up with the massive amount of real-time tracks? Do with what you can handle. If you can go 48kHz/32bits then go for it. Any band I work with and I do a mix in the 'puter I ask them what they'd like plus present different options. I can store mixes and/or recorded material on DVD-R's if they'd like cuz it would normally cost them around $160 for roughly 16 minutes on a reel as opposed to average $5 (and sometimes less) for a 4.7GB DVD-R of which could store just as much as a $160 reel of tape.

If you were, to say, go 48kHz, 96kHz, or 192kHz you'd be using more uproc and HD space but at least you can present it as a cost effective variable. Are YOU as an engineer going to notice the difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz? Well, I haven't. Would you be able to notice the difference between 16bit and 24bit? I can but will the band be able to? Plus is the file size THAT much different especially if the band is paying for the CD-R/DVD-R? It's so inexpensive plus if you hit a good 20 plus gigs on one project (not uncommon---I've been there more than once) I've had people with portable hard-drives dump files to their HD's.

Sorry, I know I said "to sum up" earlier but "talking shop" is "talkin' shop"... all engineers I've met/known are neurotic... comes with the title...

-- Adam Lazlo (engineer)

[handinjury]

Yeah those 24bit CDs... man they could be 8 bits louder! It's really dismal that the comparatively huge dynamic range on CDs over vinyl get so squished to nothingness to be loud... ok... rant off.

It's my understanding that it's best to record in the target sample rate or a multiple of it. So if you're going to be on CD then 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 would all be good. I had done some tests doing 96kHz instead of 44.1kHz. It sounded better to me while I was playing it back but once I dithered it to CD it wasn't a huge enough benefit for the disk space and additional CPU usage.

My only reason for a 24 bit cd would be one less thing to dither down.

"It's my understanding that it's best to record in the target sample rate or a multiple of it."
Whats the reasoning for the mulitiple of the sample rate? I remember seeing this somewhere, i just dont remember the rant behind it.
According to the digi le manual, reording one, 1 minute mono track @:
24/48- 8.2MB
24/88.2 - 15MB
Thats almost double the disk space, ouch. Ill have to test sometime to see if its worth changeing from 48 to 88.2. (Will my novice ears hear the differance after i dither down)

[spankenstein]

The reason is that tere will be no rounding in the math to down sample.

88.2 / 2 = 44.1

vs.

48 / 1.0884353741496598639455782312925 = 44.100000000000000000000000000021

[kcrusher]

The reason is that tere will be no rounding in the math to down sample.

88.2 / 2 = 44.1

vs.

48 / 1.0884353741496598639455782312925 = 44.100000000000000000000000000021

Downsampling DOES NOT in any way shape or form use multiples of the sampling rate for resampling. Please stop perpetrating this myth.

[djdrake13]

If you are recording for tv, you might was well record everything in 8 bit mono - the end result is going to sound like ass in any case. j/k

I hope you are joking about the 8 bit... dont' do this, keep the bit rez high. Just cause it ends at ass, doesn't mean you can start it at ass. lol

[drliebs]

Yeah old debate. My limited experience, I did a session at 96/24 and it sounded great. I downsampled and I swear I lost some sweetness in the highend, this may be doe to the converters or the logarithm or whatever and I am sure they are not all created equal.

So much stuff has come out at 44.1/16 that sounds great, and all of that wonderfull analog gear gets turned into digital in the end. (CD's sound better then vinyl unless you are the first person to play the record so let's be practical) Unless your proceeses change the audio in a desireable way (analog gear or you like what the downsampling did) don't bother.

The only argument that has any weight for me is if you are going to be doing heavy digital signal processing, because a higher res file has more detail to work with. Like a digital picture that will be shrunk in the final manifestaion, having high res to filter and process will result in a better looking low res file.

But I'm with you dude, I haven't heard it the difference.

[Tim Casey]

Technically, there's a teeny tiny difference between 48 and 44.1 - theoretical frequency response would jump from 22.05 kHz to 24 kHz, which isn't enough for most human beings to notice.

On the downside, you're going to have to go through a conversion process to get it to 44.1 for a CD... the most you could hope for is that the downconversion process didn't screw up the sound.

Why go through the downconversion process if you don't need to?

[Babaluma]

hey folks,

thanks for all the informative replies. i think i will stick to generating, recording, processing and mixing at 32bit floating point 44KHz, as i often do a lot of digital post processing.

gregg.

[mrc]

There ya go.

[misterock]

Check out this pdf on Pro Tools. Even if you don't use PT, it has a good discussion on Sample Rate and Bit Depth. Worth a look.

http://www.berkleeshares.com/production ... _pro_tools

[BradG]

Hardly ever have I digitally converted 48KHz to 44.1KHz without very obvious artifacts. I've taken to capturing old 48KHz DATs via analog when I come across them.