44.1 versus 48khz

stompforfuzz · Post by **stompforfuzz** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:26 am

I can't tell the difference, but my ears are "under construction".

Should I bother to sample at 48khz when I just end up burning to cd at 44.1?

I would convert to 96khz, but my A/D converter is a Behringer pro8 that only converts to 44.1 or 48....

Cyan421 · Post by **Cyan421** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:42 am

If you are just going to CD in the end stay at 44.1 or 88.2. The other sampling rates are for other things. Film in general is was 48 and 96 are for.

AnalogElectric · Post by **AnalogElectric** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:29 pm

I stick with 48kHz@32bit (float). That works best when I'm recording 20 or less tracks at once. I've been completely happy with 44.1kHZ@24bit for tracking tho. I like to have my bit rate at least 24 and my sampling at the very least 44.1kHz. With a naked ear I don't think you'd notice a difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz. Where I notice a difference is with bit rate, for the most part.

There are different opinions regarding sample rate dependent on what you're doing in repect to MIDI and the type of I/O's being used but I've been completely satisified running a session at 44.1kHz@24bit. The sessions I've done going 192kHz@24bit (all analog signals - no MIDI) sounded the same to me if I were to do it at 44.1kHz@24bit... in the end.

-- Adam Lazlo

ctmsound · Post by **ctmsound** » Thu May 04, 2006 7:57 pm

Why 88.2 instead of 96? I'm ignorant. I record music at 96. Would I benefit from going down to 88.2?

Studio2roll · Post by **Studio2roll** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:31 am

I've been doing my recent recordings in 24bit/48khz. I do feel there is a noticeable difference between all the different rates on my system, even when you end up at 16bit/44.1khz on a CD. The difference is greater the higher up the sample rate obviously, but to me 44.1 sounds good initially, but when you A/B it against 48 the 44.1 sounds like its sort of choked up a little. Like if it was a singer who all of a sudden tensed up.

If you're really interested in hearing the difference for yourself there is a CD out that has all the different rates vs. eachother. I think you can find the name of it at mixonline.com somwhere.

joel hamilton · Post by **joel hamilton** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:38 am

Simple answer:

The filtering needed at each sample rate changes, so the sound changes slightly from sample rate to sample rate. None of them are "wrong."

Use the one that sounds best to you. I record either 44.1 or 88.2.

I seem to like the 44.1 multiples because of the way they sound. The overall character of the rig seems to fit the way I like things to be. The choice is 100% personal preference. I could name like 20 records done on each, 44.1, 48, 88.2,96k.... And they all sound like they sound, but not better or worse depending on sample rate.

The better we all get at recording, the less things like this "matter." it is not something to "worry" about anyway. Make things sound good to you, and if that means you always have to record at 100000039384748k to make it happen, cool.

stompforfuzz · Post by **stompforfuzz** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:50 pm

thanks everyone!

You put my mind at ease!

I'll check out that CD that was mentioned, it sounds interesting.

Now I think I'll stress less and record more

cdbabel · Post by **cdbabel** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:05 pm

This site has some good info:

http://www.wikirecording.org/Digital_Re ... _Bit_Depth

llamaj · Post by **llamaj** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:32 am

48k sounds 3.9khz better to me

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:53 am

I stay at 44.1 generally. That way, when I mix stems, the stems are sample-accurate to the original multitrack. Aids in post-production trickery.

For me, the benefit of going 48 vs 44.1 is minimal, if even audible, on the systems I use. 24 bit vs 16 bit is clearly audible, so 44.1 24 bit is our MO over here.
Sure, I can hear a difference between 44/48 and 88/96 on the couple of times I've had the chance to A/B, but as my current system doesn't support the higher rates easily, and quite frankly, things sound great to me and my clients, I simply don't worry about it, and merrily go on my way making records.

stompforfuzz · Post by **stompforfuzz** » Sun May 07, 2006 5:39 am

Mark: Thanks for the input!

Is the cow in your avatar available for projects?

=D

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:08 am

Albert · Post by **Albert** » Sun May 07, 2006 11:29 am

I choose the sample rate depending on the delivery format. If it is going to end up on a CD I'll record and mix at 24/44.1k, and if it is a score destined for film/video I'll work at 24/48k. If I had to use higher sample rates I'd use the higher rate that is easily divisible. So 88.2k for CD work, and 96k for video.

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Sun May 07, 2006 7:36 pm

Albert wrote:I choose the sample rate depending on the delivery format. If it is going to end up on a CD I'll record and mix at 24/44.1k, and if it is a score destined for film/video I'll work at 24/48k. If I had to use higher sample rates I'd use the higher rate that is easily divisible. So 88.2k for CD work, and 96k for video.

True that over here, too. The occasional work for video/DVD is at 48kHz.

Message Board

44.1 versus 48khz

44.1 versus 48khz

Who is online