Topic: So, is 48 > 44.1 any better than 44.1?

[Robby Grossman]

I have a friend who swears that it's better to sample high and downsample to 44.1, rather than sample at 44.1 on location, but this doesn't make any sense to me.  Is there a consensus on this?

I understand that for keeping a master copy there can be an advantage to having a higher sample rate, so that you have a higher-quality master for the future, but if all I care about is the 44.1 downsample, is there any reason to sample higher in the field?

[Ed.]

if you're only going to be using the 44.1, i'd just record at 44.1

try using search and you'll find a handful of other threads on this topic

[BC]

48>44.1 is worse than rolling at 44.1 to begin with.
Nice to avoid resampling whenever possible.

[Robby Grossman]

48>44.1 is worse than rolling at 44.1 to begin with.
Nice to avoid resampling whenever possible.

Hmm, I always thought that as long as the rate that you're dropping is a common factor that it didn't hurt.  Thanks.

[ethan]

On a related not...

I've been told that if you have to normalize that it's best to normalize the 48K source before SRC.

comments?

[Ed.]

Here are a few threads with some info on this topic

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=27066.0
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=8297.0
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=2311.0

taken from this thread...
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=43237.0

[Ed.]

On a related not...

I've been told that if you have to normalize that it's best to normalize the 48K source before SRC.

comments?

from what i've read on this site, its always better to do any post production process with the original file and then resample.

[BC]

48>44.1 is worse than rolling at 44.1 to begin with.
Nice to avoid resampling whenever possible.

Hmm, I always thought that as long as the rate that you're dropping is a common factor that it didn't hurt.  Thanks.

That is true, I forgot about that. So resampling from 88.2 (or 176.4) to 44.1 should be less damaging than 48>44.1. I was only thinking about 48 vs 44.1.

[Robby Grossman]

48>44.1 is worse than rolling at 44.1 to begin with.
Nice to avoid resampling whenever possible.

Hmm, I always thought that as long as the rate that you're dropping is a common factor that it didn't hurt.  Thanks.

That is true, I forgot about that. So resampling from 88.2 (or 176.4) to 44.1 should be less damaging than 48>44.1. I was only thinking about 48 vs 44.1.

gotcha, thanks.

[Chad817]

usually the only time I do 48k anymore is if i'm running video too and the end result is going on dvd.

[Brian]

48>44.1 is worse than rolling at 44.1 to begin with.
Nice to avoid resampling whenever possible.

Hmm, I always thought that as long as the rate that you're dropping is a common factor that it didn't hurt.  Thanks.

That is true, I forgot about that. So resampling from 88.2 (or 176.4) to 44.1 should be less damaging than 48>44.1. I was only thinking about 48 vs 44.1.

yes.  I prefer to record in 44.1 or 88.2 depending upon the number of tracks.  However, the audio softwares and sample rate converters have always been getting better.  Grant it, the best resamplers are on the expensive mastering DAW's, but other softwares like pro tools, nuendo, and wavelab have decent converters...... well maybe not pro tools

For me, i just think of it as one less major DSP to send your audio through that may potentially crunch your sound.  Your computers CPU likes to divide by 2 or 3 instead of 1.111232454553156446546153123165465116545647  (that number is totally made up )