Topic: Converting 48 khz to 44.1 khz

[phishn]

Hi,

What is the best way to convert 48 khz to 44.1 khz?  Is there any special settings to be used?  I'm using cool edit pro 2.1

[rabhan]

edit > convert sample rate, then wait about 20-30mins

[DaryanLenz]

Hey jon,

Did you ever look into why cep2.1 takes so damned long to do everything regardless of precessor power?

Daryan

[1st set only]

hey there,

If you have nero it wil burn 48khz aud discs no prob.

[rabhan]

Hey jon,

Did you ever look into why cep2.1 takes so damned long to do everything regardless of precessor power?

Daryan

bc it had to build the peak files and serious number crunching. i spent about 5.5hrs on the plane yest flying from rich>atl>vegas and the valence lasted the entire time. i converted my LOS show from last week from 24/48 to 16/44 and tracked it on the plane using the etymotic ER4ps and they fuckin rock! all i heard was music, when i closed my eyes, i couldnt tell that i was even on a plane, sick! once you make the 24/44 file in CEP, wavelab has to rebuild the peaks also, but it is still a bit faster than CEP. either way, if it takes 20-30mins, whateva, i got the time to wait. i just cant expect to be able to burn the shows off in the lot after the show, gonna have to wait til the hotel room or the next day, so be it. atleast things are working well.

[F.O.Bean]

use the uncut wavs for sure, and i like using wavelab 4/5.0, sf 6/7.0 is really nice as well, but takes too damn long for my liking YMMV tho

I like wavelab 5.0 for speed and sound

then i re-open in cd wave and hack away, flkac w/ flac frontend, make sure to remove any SBE's in frontend

[admkrk]

using sf8, all i do is hit resample> 44.1 or something like that? the default settings seem to work just fine for me. never timed it, but it ain't quick.

[admkrk]

i've only done it w/ sf. process>resample:  new sample rate 44,100 / interpolation accuracy 4 / check apply anti-alias filter durring resample>ok

wavelab or auditon should be similar. i think you would get very close if not the same results from either one. i use sf because that's the one i'm most familiar w/

[F.O.Bean]

sf 7.0 may be a bit more exact but damn if my ears can hear it, and also, every processing thing sf does seams flat to my ears

wavelab 4/5.0 goes likew this:

open wavs, process, convert sample rate, then select 44.1k

done

[F.O.Bean]

thats just it, there is no definitive answer, its just whatever suites your needs the best

[mhibbs]

sf 7.0 may be a bit more exact but damn if my ears can hear it, and also, every processing thing sf does seams flat to my ears

wavelab 4/5.0 goes likew this:

open wavs, process, convert sample rate, then select 44.1k

done

thanks bean, that's what I did.

has anyone done critical listening to different programs to see if one sounds any different from the other when going 48>44?  the only thing I have gotten from reading threads is that CDWave doesn't sound as good as SF or WL; but no definite answer on what is preferred.

I can't tell enough difference for it to matter, and Wavelab is a hell of a lot FASTER which is a nice perk in my opinion.

[F.O.Bean]

sf 7.0 may be a bit more exact but damn if my ears can hear it, and also, every processing thing sf does seams flat to my ears

wavelab 4/5.0 goes likew this:

open wavs, process, convert sample rate, then select 44.1k

done

thanks bean, that's what I did.

has anyone done critical listening to different programs to see if one sounds any different from the other when going 48>44?  the only thing I have gotten from reading threads is that CDWave doesn't sound as good as SF or WL; but no definite answer on what is preferred.

I can't tell enough difference for it to matter, and Wavelab is a hell of a lot FASTER which is a nice perk in my opinion.

exactly my thoughts 100%

[georgeh]

I've been wondering about this myself.  I've been told by a freind to use my newly aquired
SF8.  But what about using my old method of Sony R500>Sony CDR W33? is using hardware better then software?  Or is a question of the best software?