Topic: Sample Rate 44.1 vs. 48

[suites]

I run Church Mics/Pre (ca9100) into R-09.

Everyone says to record in 24 bit...which I do.

But what is the right sample rate to use?

I have done a few shows (none came out that great) but I am not very strong in the "transfer part".

So I would like to record so that the transfer to CD will be less painful.

Thanks.

SUITES

[Brian Skalinder]

If you want to minimize the effort in getting the recording onto CD, then record 24-bit / 44.1 kHz.  That way, you only have to dither to 16-bit.  If you record 24-bit / 48 kHz, you'll have to resample first (to 44.1 kHz) and then dither to 16-bit.

[dean]

Oh, Brian beat me to it.   

However, if you record in 48 it's a touch higher quality overall (I believe), and resampling to 44.1kHz is very easy (as I just learned a week or two ago), but requires and extra step and a few more minutes of work in the process.

Let me know if you want to go that route and I can give you explicit instructions on how successfully resample.  Brian or another will have to help you with the dither, though, as I'm not doing that...

[suites]

Thanks for the advice.

I will go with the best recording and go with 48...then when I need to "dither" and such, I am sure I will be back with questions.

Hal

[svenkid]

why dither from 48 to 44.1? I record at 24/48, flac in 24/48, burn dvd-a at 24/48 sounds fine, and in real time ( I think the kz affects time speed), Ive also burned 16/96 to cd w/ no issues, what gives?

[rowjimmytour]

why dither from 48 to 44.1? I record at 24/48, flac in 24/48, burn dvd-a at 24/48 sounds fine, and in real time ( I think the kz affects time speed), Ive also burned 16/96 to cd w/ no issues, what gives?

I think (not 100% sure) most folks me included don't have a DVD-A player and have to resample/dither down to 16/44.1.
Peace

[boojum]

I record at 24/48 for the extra headroom at 24 bit.  I believe that 48 may make a difference.  I am not sure, but it costs nothing to record at a higher bit rate and depth.  I do all the edits in this format and resample and dither to 16/44.1 to burn a CD.  If it is a "serious" recording I keep the original raw recording masters should I need them later.  Just my way; not neccessarily the right way.

[rowjimmytour]

I record at 24/48 for the extra headroom at 24 bit.  I believe that 48 may make a difference.  I am not sure, but it costs nothing to record at a higher bit rate and depth.  I do all the edits in this format and resample and dither to 16/44.1 to burn a CD.  If it is a "serious" recording I keep the original raw recording masters should I need them later.  Just my way; not neccessarily the right way.

Dito only I keep all my 24/48 masters because hopefully sooner then later I will get a 24 bit player and only use 16/44.1 for LMA and my car.
Peace

[svenkid]

but if 48 and 96 burn to cdr, whats the deal with 44.1?

[612]

but if 48 and 96 burn to cdr, whats the deal with 44.1?

At the moment I don't record at any higher than 16/44.1 (did some 16/48 in the NBJ3 days) but I don't believe the average CD player can play anything higher than 16/44.1.

I should start having the UA-5 send a 48 signal to the iriver because the digi-in will take 48 if that's what it's given.

[Brian Skalinder]

but if 48 and 96 burn to cdr, whats the deal with 44.1?

I bet your burning app resamples on the fly to 44.  To test:  try burning 16/96 to CD...then rip the WAVs from the burnt CD.  Bet they're 16/44.

[svenkid]

but if 48 and 96 burn to cdr, whats the deal with 44.1?

I bet your burning app resamples on the fly to 44.  To test:  try burning 16/96 to CD...then rip the WAVs from the burnt CD.  Bet they're 16/44.

Intersting, that's probably it, sorry to be a super douche this fine friday.

[Ozpeter]

In a recent series of hundreds of blind tests conducted on various systems over the course of a year under closely controlled conditions, nobody could be found who could tell the difference between 24/96 recordings and 16/44.1 recordings (beyond the level of chance).  The publication of this caused much debate on the net but I didn't see anyone able to point to a properly conducted test which could counter this.

However, selling gear labelled "24/96" has been a very profitable exercise for the companies involved.

It follows that the chances of telling the difference between 48kHz and 44.1kHz are even smaller.

Go beyond 16 bits, 44.1kHz recording if you want, but there seems to be no scientific basis for taking up the extra space on your storage medium.  (I'd be most interested of course if anyone can point out evidence published by a reputable body which contradicts this).

Relevant link - http://www.audiomastersforum.net/amforum/index.php/topic,6535.0.html

[Nick's Picks]

My completely worthless opinion:

these trivial differences in sample rate are useless in the noisy bar / theater / hockey rink type places that I typically record.
if I were doing critical work, w/an acoustic source in a great venue then i'd go for the highest resolution possible.  But...I dont.

I have recorded in PCM from 16/44 > 32/96.
the 24bit part is the big bump in detail.  you will never notice any loss mastering at 24/44.1 and then going straight to CD.  In fact, I'd even argue that the 24bit part really only buys you more headroom so it requires less skill / gear knowledge than trying to "nail it" at 16bits.

99% of all CD/DVD players these days resample it to 24/96 or higher any way.  Might as well just stick with Redbook and let the hardware manipulate it (w/o it costing you time and money to try and achieve something you cant achieve in the first place).

Over the years, i've done my listening on what I consider a good stereo, properly setup and configured.  At times, true reference quality playback.  I can't hear a difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz.  May just be my ears though.
Your ears may vary.
YEMV

[dean]

I've accidentally burned a cd at 48 and it won't work in my players.  It skips parts of tracks, adds weird dead air to parts of tracks, etc.  Behaves very strangely.  That got me started on figuring how to resample, etc...