Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?  (Read 19581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alpine85

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Gender: Male
    • avatar (full-size)
Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« on: July 29, 2009, 02:13:48 PM »
(Sorry if this has been covered before)

I just started doing 24-bit recording since I upgraded to the R-44.  I've been recording at 24/44 and have been happy with the results, but I've noticed a LOT of tapers record at 24/48 and then resample down to 44.1.  Is it worth the extra step for that small amount of extra sampling frequency?  I can understand going 24/96 and then downsampling, but why 48?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 03:28:10 PM by alpine85 »
MICS: AKG CK-1/CK-63/CK-8/CK-22 --> AKG 460/JW460/JW452
CABLES: GAKcables and Mogami
PRES: Apogee Mini-Me, SD USBPre-2, Busman UA-5
RECORDERS: Oade R-44, Tascam DR-100-MKII, JB3

Offline OFOTD

  • Amorican
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 02:22:30 PM »
Just like CD's are 16/44.1 for that particular format other newer formats start at 24/48.    If CD's were gone then the 44.1 sampling freq would probably not exist.


ETA: Correction
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 03:19:08 PM by OFOTD »

Offline Kevin Straker

  • The Shogun of Easley
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2009, 03:08:00 PM »
I use 24/48 because it is the preferred format for the image software I use. DVD-Audiophile uses 24/48 or 24/96 to create the .iso file.
People on ludes should not drive...
J. Spicoli

mk4,mk21>kc5>cmc6>V3>SD722

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2009, 03:23:05 PM »
^ Right.  I think 48 is the standard sampling frequency for the audio portion on any video-based software system.

Offline alpine85

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Gender: Male
    • avatar (full-size)
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2009, 03:27:37 PM »
Yeah it makes sense to record at 48 or 96 kHz if you're using for video, dvd-audio, or for archiving purposes.

But what if you're final medium is going to be 16/44.1?  Is the quality of a something recorded at 48 and then downsampled to 44.1 going to be any better than if it was just recorded at 44.1 in the first place?  Is it worse?  I guess it would be easy enough to do some experiments and see.  Probably would depend on the method used for downsampling too.

I was just curious about peoples reasoning behind doing 24/48...
MICS: AKG CK-1/CK-63/CK-8/CK-22 --> AKG 460/JW460/JW452
CABLES: GAKcables and Mogami
PRES: Apogee Mini-Me, SD USBPre-2, Busman UA-5
RECORDERS: Oade R-44, Tascam DR-100-MKII, JB3

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2009, 03:40:02 PM »
Yeah it makes sense to record at 48 or 96 kHz if you're using for video, dvd-audio, or for archiving purposes.

But what if you're final medium is going to be 16/44.1?  Is the quality of a something recorded at 48 and then downsampled to 44.1 going to be any better than if it was just recorded at 44.1 in the first place?  Is it worse?  I guess it would be easy enough to do some experiments and see.  Probably would depend on the method used for downsampling too.

I was just curious about peoples reasoning behind doing 24/48...

It's doubtful you'll hear a difference between 48 and 44.1.  I don't know for myself, but I've read that people can't hear any difference between 48 and 96.  It's the bit depth that provides that main difference in sound quality. 

As far as the standard of 48 vs. 44.1, I don't have strong feelings one way or another.  However, my personal reasoning for choosing 48 is that it's compatible with the video standard, it seems logical because it's divisible by 96 and 192, and if I were ever gonna need to burn to CDR, I'd have to downsample anyway, so what's the difference between downsampling from 24/48 (which is a theoretically higher quality than 44.1) or 24/44.1.  The end result is a downsample either way.  That's been my logic anyways.

Offline OFOTD

  • Amorican
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2009, 03:41:32 PM »
I was just curious about peoples reasoning behind doing 24/48...

Well the easiest way to explain it is to be as future proof as possible.    If you have the ability to record at higher bit/sampling rates as well as have the ability to store the larger files then why not.

Why do it?  Because you can.  Say in xx years a new format comes high fidelity format comes out, you'll want the best rate possible to start with.   Nothing is wrong or inherently bad about doing 24/44.1 but you have the means to record higher so why not.  

For me personally I record at 24/48 unless the band or venue has an above average PA then i'll do 24/96.  Also if it is a recording that is personally important to me then i'll also go with 24/96.

In the end do what you have the capabilities and patience to record/archive at.  

Offline datbrad

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2009, 04:09:04 PM »
Yeah it makes sense to record at 48 or 96 kHz if you're using for video, dvd-audio, or for archiving purposes.

But what if you're final medium is going to be 16/44.1?  Is the quality of a something recorded at 48 and then downsampled to 44.1 going to be any better than if it was just recorded at 44.1 in the first place?  Is it worse?  I guess it would be easy enough to do some experiments and see.  Probably would depend on the method used for downsampling too.

I was just curious about peoples reasoning behind doing 24/48...

It's doubtful you'll hear a difference between 48 and 44.1.  I don't know for myself, but I've read that people can't hear any difference between 48 and 96.  It's the bit depth that provides that main difference in sound quality. 

As far as the standard of 48 vs. 44.1, I don't have strong feelings one way or another.  However, my personal reasoning for choosing 48 is that it's compatible with the video standard, it seems logical because it's divisible by 96 and 192, and if I were ever gonna need to burn to CDR, I'd have to downsample anyway, so what's the difference between downsampling from 24/48 (which is a theoretically higher quality than 44.1) or 24/44.1.  The end result is a downsample either way.  That's been my logic anyways.

Adding to what Steve said, there is one more strong reason I have heard for using at least 48khz, or anything higher, and it has more to do with the analog portion of the recorder directly in front of the A/D, not the actual fact that it's a higher sampling rate. PCM recorders have to have an anti-alaising filter in the audio path before the A/D, to prevent any sound above half the sampling rate to hit the A/D. This characteristic is independant of the bit depth.

Since there is no such thing as a true frequency dependent brick wall filter, the attenuation has to start a couple thousand khz before that frequency, so that frequencies above the limit will be completely attenuated. This means that while technically, the frequency response of 44.1 recordings should extend up to 22.05 khz, the attenuation of the filter starts rolling at 20 khz, so the 22.05 top range that should be recorded is not recorded.

At 48 khz, same deal, only the high range goes to 22 khz, attenuating the high frequencies so they are completely blocked at 24 khz. So, at 48khz and higher sampling rates, you ease the job of the anti alaising filter, and at the same time capture higher frequencies. You can always drop down to 44.1, but you can't go the other way later.

Good Luck !!
AKG C460B w/CK61/CK63>Luminous Monarch XLRs>SD MP-1(x2)>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD661(Oade WMOD)

Beyer M201>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD561 (Oade CMOD)

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2009, 10:32:23 PM »
There is no good reason at all to record at 48 kHz if your eventual delivery medium will be at 44.1 kHz; in fact it makes the eventual product very slightly worse if you do so, because any sampling rate conversion adds noise. If on the other hand your eventual delivery medium will be at 48 kHz then it makes good sense to record originally at 48 kHz for precisely the same reason.

If you are just recording for your own pleasure and you can set the conditions of playback to your own liking, then of course you are free to choose any sampling rate that you prefer. But there is no good reason to think that a significant difference in sound quality could exist between two rates as close together as 44.1 and 48 kHz--at least, not on account of the sampling rate alone.

Of course if there's any real advantage to a higher sampling rate in terms of preserving higher frequencies, you give that up completely when you resample at a lower rate, so again there is no sonic advantage to starting out at a higher rate than necessary for eventual delivery; it's simply a waste of storage space and processing time. Nonetheless some people do it because it makes them feel better, I guess.

--best regards

music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline OFOTD

  • Amorican
  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2009, 11:29:15 PM »
it's simply a waste of storage space and processing time. Nonetheless some people do it because it makes them feel better, I guess.

Well a 1TB drive is under $100 and my Core i7 machine will process a file extremely fast.   So its not waste of either for me.  Storage space and processing speed will only continue to get bigger, cheaper and faster.


Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2009, 12:22:59 AM »
OFOTD, there's always some value of X for which you get no further audible benefit from choosing a sampling rate any higher than X kHz. I'm not defending any particular value of X here; I'm only saying that a sampling rate higher than the highest rate that gives an audible benefit means (kind of obviously) that disk space and processing time are being used to no audible benefit.

If someone wants to spend N times as much money on storage media as they would have to, with no audible benefit, that's their business, I suppose. But when someone is new at this and they're asking these basic-information-type questions, I think we should tell them the truth: The audio hobby has always been one in which some people choose to spend a lot of extra money for benefits which aren't always tangible.

So unfortunately you can't just look at what choices other people are making and assume that "there must be a good reason for it" in terms of sound quality--just as a person can't simply look at the audio equipment that's on the market and assume that in all cases "there must be a good reason" in terms of sound quality for certain features or approaches that the equipment embodies. There is a fair amount of audio equipment that is made the way it is just to be different--or to appeal to beliefs that the designers of the equipment are perfectly well aware are myths. If markets were rational, we wouldn't be in the mess we're currently in.

--best regards
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 12:32:06 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline alpine85

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Gender: Male
    • avatar (full-size)
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2009, 11:44:01 PM »
There is no good reason at all to record at 48 kHz if your eventual delivery medium will be at 44.1 kHz; in fact it makes the eventual product very slightly worse if you do so, because any sampling rate conversion adds noise.


First off, thanks for all the responses, everyone.   Lots of good info here (much of it conflicting - hehe)  and many factors I hadn't even considered.

DSatz - are you saying that a recording that is converted from 96kHz > 44.1 would be noisier than one recorded at 44.1?  Would that noise outweigh the benefit of recording at the higher frequency?  Or is there no benefit at all of recording at 96 if you're going to downsample anyway?
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 11:51:36 PM by alpine85 »
MICS: AKG CK-1/CK-63/CK-8/CK-22 --> AKG 460/JW460/JW452
CABLES: GAKcables and Mogami
PRES: Apogee Mini-Me, SD USBPre-2, Busman UA-5
RECORDERS: Oade R-44, Tascam DR-100-MKII, JB3

Offline alpine85

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Gender: Male
    • avatar (full-size)
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2009, 11:49:09 PM »
(snip)

...if I were ever gonna need to burn to CDR, I'd have to downsample anyway, so what's the difference between downsampling from 24/48 (which is a theoretically higher quality than 44.1) or 24/44.1.  The end result is a downsample either way.  That's been my logic anyways.

Well it would be 2 processing steps instead of one, right?

24/48 > 16/44  bit depth conversion + sample rate conversion (2 different processes)
24/44 > 16/44  bit depth conversion only
MICS: AKG CK-1/CK-63/CK-8/CK-22 --> AKG 460/JW460/JW452
CABLES: GAKcables and Mogami
PRES: Apogee Mini-Me, SD USBPre-2, Busman UA-5
RECORDERS: Oade R-44, Tascam DR-100-MKII, JB3

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2009, 08:08:12 AM »
alpine85, you asked:

> are you saying that a recording that is converted from 96kHz > 44.1 would be noisier than one recorded at 44.1?

Any conversion adds noise, but whether you will hear it will depends in part on the noise level in the original signal. Usually with live recording there is already enough noise that the difference won't be audible, although it is real. That's why I said "very slightly worse."


> Would that noise outweigh the benefit of recording at the higher frequency?

Whatever benefit there would be from recording at the higher frequency would be lost AND there would be added noise, so it's not one penalty versus the other--it's one penalty PLUS the other.


> Or is there no benefit at all of recording at 96 if you're going to downsample anyway?

The only benefit would be that you would have an original 96 kHz recording, if that is of value to you for some other reason (as it has been suggested, you might have another use later on for the same recording at a higher sampling frequency). But the 44.1 kHz "end product" wouldn't benefit sonically from having been recorded originally at 96 kHz.

When I talk about "sonic benefit" I mean "a more accurate or precise rendering of the original signal." Whenever any processing alters the sound of a recording, there can be opinions on both sides as to which one sounds better; I can't predict which one anyone will prefer.

I'm just saying that, for example, a 96 kHz recording could (wouldn't necessarily, but could under some circumstances) preserve the phase relationships among very high-frequency tones a little better than a 44.1 kHz recording, and that advantage (whether or not it is audible, which is a whole other question) would be entirely lost by converting to 44.1--so you could get the same level of phase linearity by starting out at 44.1, without the added noise of the conversion on top of the loss of phase linearity.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 08:15:33 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline Jhurlbs81

  • Trade Count: (20)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3076
  • Gender: Male
    • My LMA collection
Re: Why record at 24/48 versus 24/44.1?
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2009, 11:21:56 AM »
Quote
I'm just saying that, for example, a 96 kHz recording could (wouldn't necessarily, but could under some circumstances) preserve the phase relationships among very high-frequency tones a little better than a 44.1 kHz recording

DSatz-

could you explain this in a little more detail?  I'm curious what you mean and always enjoy reading your posts..

thanks
jesse
FREE JERRYFREAK!

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.133 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF