Topic: 44.1 versus 48

[spcyrfc]

well, ive been debating this with myself.  everything i have recorded has been 44.1, primarily becasue i do not have a reliable computer or software that would enable me to go from 48 to 44.1. 
am i robbing myself of quality?  Has 44.1 now become commonplace due to the ease of putting it on cd? 

are there some shows (priceless ones) that ought to be recorded in 48 or better if possible?

luke

[Brian Skalinder]

There is no the right way.  I prefer 44.1kHz straight outta my V3 for the following reasons:

[1] I'd rather have my V3 output at 44.1kHz than some software resampling routine from 48 > 44
[2] It's easier to get onto CD (one less mastering step), my preferred listening format
[3] I know I'll never go back and re-burn 16-bit/48kHz DVDs from the original source files (just like I haven't gone back and converted many of my analog's to digital)

[Craig T]

If I master at 16bit, I use 44.1k since the end product will be audio CD's.

If I master at 24bit, I use 48k since the end product will primarily be DVD-Audio, with 16/44.1 audio CD's of secondary importance.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I go 48, or at least started to do so recently, because:

1)  I (supposedly*) can playback 48k so why not???
2)  I fully intend to burn onto DVD-audio one day unlike Skalinger...

Reasons I find it annoying though:

1)  44.1k is so much more common (poor reason, as MP3 is "common" as well).
2)  my P2 dinosaur takes a really long time to resample 48>44.1.

* my 48k playback on my Zoltirx ain't workin' right now...

But probably my biggest motivation to go 48k is:  bigger is better.  You can cut hair short, but you can't cut hair "long".  In otherwords, tape 48 and resample to 44.1 - but the 44.1>48k resample may not be advisable...

Terry

[eric.B]

44.1

why?..  easy transfer and the difference is oso negligible..   I dont think most have the ability to hear the difference..   the most dramatic effect on an audience recording is the LOCATION.. It's just my opinion that most audience tapes i hear from others wouldnt benefit one bit from the jump up to 48k .. or even 24bit/96..    the differnce is sooooooo small..  I could see it if we could be in the sweet spot in a GRATE sounding venue EVERY time...  but that is just not the case..  when DVD is as common as redbook cd..  i will make the leap..

[jpschust]

44.1

why?..  easy transfer and the difference is oso negligible..   I dont think most have the ability to hear the difference..   the most dramatic effect on an audience recording is the LOCATION.. It's just my opinion that most audience tapes i hear from others wouldnt benefit one bit from the jump up to 48k .. or even 24bit/96..    the differnce is sooooooo small..  I could see it if we could be in the sweet spot in a GRATE sounding venue EVERY time...  but that is just not the case..  when DVD is as common as redbook cd..  i will make the leap..

if you think the 24/96 difference is small you must be listening with corks in your ears.  the quality at 24/96 is a gigantic improvement from 16/44.  its significantly deeper and more real.  that's the best way i can describe it.

[pfife]

44.1

why?..  easy transfer and the difference is oso negligible..   I dont think most have the ability to hear the difference..   the most dramatic effect on an audience recording is the LOCATION.. It's just my opinion that most audience tapes i hear from others wouldnt benefit one bit from the jump up to 48k .. or even 24bit/96..    the differnce is sooooooo small..  I could see it if we could be in the sweet spot in a GRATE sounding venue EVERY time...  but that is just not the case..  when DVD is as common as redbook cd..  i will make the leap..

if you think the 24/96 difference is small you must be listening with corks in your ears.  the quality at 24/96 is a gigantic improvement from 16/44.  its significantly deeper and more real.  that's the best way i can describe it.

I definately hear a difference from 16-24; I don't hear a difference from 44.1 - 48 tho.  my playback gear kinda suckles, so that could be why

[eric.B]

corks..?    hmm..  :::DIgging in ear:::..  nahh....  maybe a crayon or two..   hehe...

 I would agree with you if i heard such tapes on a sweeeeeet playback system of a sweeeeet recording..  its just MO that most tapes are made in such wretched conditions, that a more "REAL" sounding tape would probably be a detriment..  who wants to hear a tape from a crappy PA in a crappy location with crappy mics  sound "deeper and more real"...

much appreciated tho.. im glad there are those out there that are seeing the benefits from the improved quality..  pioneers set standards..  

edit..  whooops.. went on a "crappy rampage"..   my bad

[pfife]

Well, I should qualify my statement- I hear differences in environments that I can control- the only 24 bit recording I have done, and been able to compare to 16 bit is using my digital multitracker, so it is in my basement, where it was controlled to the best of my abilities.

But, I don't know if it is necessarily that it sounds "better" - my goal in taping is to most accurately reflect what it really sounded like when I was there.  In achieving that goal, 24-bit is definately better, to my ears.

[jpschust]

i even hear the 16-24 difference on cheap sony-esque systems.

[eric.B]

o i hear ya...

i even hear the 16-24 difference on cheap sony-esque systems.

i like the word "difference" as opposed to "better"

[taperkat]

I hear the difference between a 128 and 256 mp3...

i think it's the uniqueness of my hearing loss, as I just don't have all the highs and lows anymore, so the mids are that much more there.

and I tape 48 unless i forgot to tape the switch down..

[mizary]

48khz is nice if you ever plan on remastering - you remaster the 48khz files then resample down to 44.1 - This gives better results than remastering the 44.1 directly...

However 48 is not far from 44.1, but every little bit helps...

But yeah, taping at 48khz is a bit of a pain for the small advantage it gives you.  Plus Brian makes a good point about letting the v3 (or whatever)  output 44.1 as opposed to having software involved...

--mizary

[creekfreak]

doing DAT I did 44.1 for easy cd transfer, and there isn't a difference really IMO.

now 24bit is a different story....I agree, the more wretched the place you are taping, the shittiness is even more apparent in 24bit, but if you get to set up in the sweet spot out doors, or in a good sounding room, or even better, lip or onstage 24bit sounds amazing...especially when you run split omni's 

[Busman Audio]

I go with 48khz  it is more samples per second therefore you are getting more detail even if your ears can't hear it. You are providing an extra bit of headroom for your frequency response.  There was a great response on the laptop tapers yahoo group a while ago about the benefits of 48 over 44.1 and 96 over either.
 
There is no argument that can shoot down the quality of 24 bit recording.

[Tim]

There is no argument that can shoot down the quality of 24 bit recording.

a kickass upsampling DAC and a nice transport

[super-phat-al]

i have a 44.1 dmic, so thats all i can do.  i do it in 44.1 because of transfer time.  maybe i can hear the difference, but i would need the same rig, same location, same config, to really do a nice comparison. 

16 bit and 24 is another world.  HUGE difference with that.

[Ed.]

I've been running 48khz for over a year, but now i think i'm going to switch to 44.1 because i'm getting lazy and the extra step takes too much time.

[Tim]

[3] I know I'll never go back and re-burn 16-bit/48kHz DVDs from the original source files (just like I haven't gone back and converted many of my analog's to digital)

I think that's the key.... 48k IS "better", whether you hear it or not. But do you want to archive 48k and then (eventually) go back and source your DVD's from them?

I'm honest with myself... I'm not going to do it, so it's 44.1 for me

[John R]

i goes both ways for me.  i'll send 48 to the dat and let the cdrw700 resample for the disc.

jr

[ts]

I got the opti out upgrade on my V3 when it became available. So now I run a JB3 and a Dat. The first few shows I did that way I left the V3 on 48K. So now I have a Dat master in 48K and a copy on my JB3 in 48K. Well, I thought I was doing something neat by having a backup master on Dat and being able to use the JB3 for quick transfers and burning.
It took sooo looong to resample in CE2K, that I said screw it and reverted to my old dinosaur method of using my Sony PCM2600>Sony CDRW33 to do the transfer and let the CDRW33 do the resampling. That actually took less time, even with marking tracks as I was listening.
So my next run of shows is coming up. Do I still set my V3 on 48K, or do I just set it to 44.1 so my JB3 can do what I bought for, which was quick transfers? It still would be nice to have a 48K Dat master, but I can't have both.

[heath]

it's always best to record at the highest bit depth/smapling rate available to you.  In the field at concerts, I go 16/48.  If I do a location multitrack, I go 24/96 into protools.  Here at the studio, we do 2 track stuff at 24/192 and everything from 2 tracks to 24 tracks 24/96.   

[F.O.Bean]

i do 48k for phish, and 44.1k for everything else

[mizary]

i do 48k for phish, and 44.1k for everything else

You mean you DID 48k for phish...  do would imply future shows...



and just to confuse people more...  which would be better 16bit/96khz or 24bit/44.1khz?

I am guessing 24/44.1 would be better...  But am too lazy to do the math.

2^16*96 vs. 2^24*44.1  (is that right??)

Yeah...  2^24 is HUGE...  I need a laptop!

--mizary

[F.O.Bean]

i do 48k for phish, and 44.1k for everything else

You mean you DID 48k for phish...  do would imply future shows...



and just to confuse people more...  which would be better 16bit/96khz or 24bit/44.1khz?

I am guessing 24/44.1 would be better...  But am too lazy to do the math.

2^16*96 vs. 2^24*44.1  (is that right??)

Yeah...  2^24 is HUGE...  I need a laptop!

--mizary

so true, so true

i would have to say that 24-bit is a bigger improvement for sure

[BC]

i do 48k for phish, and 44.1k for everything else

You mean you DID 48k for phish...  do would imply future shows...



and just to confuse people more...  which would be better 16bit/96khz or 24bit/44.1khz?

I am guessing 24/44.1 would be better...  But am too lazy to do the math.

2^16*96 vs. 2^24*44.1  (is that right??)

Yeah...  2^24 is HUGE...  I need a laptop!

--mizary

24/44.1 would be better to run than 16/96.

Just FYI:

Increasing the bit depth gives you added dynamic range (6dB per bit, which is why you can run levels more conservatively at 24 bit).

Increasing the sampling rate increases the maximum frequency that you can record (Nyquist theorem: the max freq that goes on your tape = sampling rate/2, so that 48KHz allows recording sounds up to 24KHz)

The increased dynamic range from increasing the bit depth to 24 bit is much more audible than the increased bandwidth resulting from increasing the sampling rate over 48 KHz (or for that matter 44.1) .

I have some friends who say they can hear that 48KHz sounds better than 44.1. I have never done a head to head comparison but I have a hard time believing there is that much difference between the two. I like some others have come to the realization that I will probably never go back and put my 48KHz masters on DVD, so lately I have been rolling at 24/44.1, it makes creating 16/44.1 copies for CDR so much more easier.


Happy taping,
Ben

[pfife]

it's always best to record at the highest bit depth/smapling rate available to you.  In the field at concerts, I go 16/48.  If I do a location multitrack, I go 24/96 into protools.  Here at the studio, we do 2 track stuff at 24/192 and everything from 2 tracks to 24 tracks 24/96.   

This is what I do as well.  always what is the best available.

[jhirte]

I always do 48Khz, some stuff I do ends up on DVD, which needs 48K. Other reason is might as well do 48K I have no problem waiting for CEP to downsample for those I do put on cdr. I just figure might as well have the V3 on 48K and get the highest sampling rate I can..

-Jim

[spcyrfc]

so for archiving, which is not necessarily for the purpose of listining immediatly on my stereo, 48 or better is the way to go.
but for convience, 44.1. 
i guess if there is ever a show that is priceless, (DGQ at the Botanic Gardens i consider $less) it should be recorded in 48 if not for me than for posterity.  but i guess i shanked that one (44.1).  oh well, still sounds fine. 
i wonder if every recording is not priceless.  most of the things i record i am the only one who has recorded and maybe, but hopefully not, who will record.  the little local acts full of energy, age and quality are the ones that may pass forgotten and unheard.  for them then, i should reformat my computer (it is damned) and learn to resample.

thanks all
luke

[taperkat]

I also have many shows that, whether or not they're my cup of tea, I was the only taper. I was just contacted by a non friendly taper band that I stealthed, that I have on my list.. their management wants a copy. =]

[pfife]

I also have many shows that, whether or not they're my cup of tea, I was the only taper. I was just contacted by a non friendly taper band that I stealthed, that I have on my list.. their management wants a copy. =]

Tell them you'll give it to them if the open their policy... 

[taperkat]

that's the actual idea, the band knew I was taping, the management didn't...

[Karl]

I did a few tests once, messing around with resampling and sampling rates.

AT853>UA-5>JB3

Resampling was done with Samplitude (known for it's ability to resample well).

48k definitely sounded better than 44.1k.
44.1k sounded much better than recording at 48k and resampling to 44.1k.

I think it comes down to what you do with the recordings.  If you are primarily going to play back on CD, you should always record at 44.1.  If you are going to be using DVD, you should be at 48.  If you are really worried about archiving to preserve for future generations, then you should try to do 48k.

[Karl]

I also have a feeling that if you are primarily going to listen back on CD, that you would be better off recording at 44.1k rather than 96k.

[Nick's Picks]

those of you who say "48k is better even though I cant hear it" need to re-think their logic.

I have routinely recorded 24/44.1 for the ease of redbook mastering.  And for 24bit playback, it still sounds superior to 16/44.1.
High sample rates....the jury is out.  I record a lot of 24/96 too, but its for the simple factor of "I can" and the future thought of DVD audio playback. 

A good CD player or DAC renders 24bit audio as almost useless comparred to 16bit.  The better this D/A stage becomes, the thinner the line between the two.  I've tought myself this countless times over and over on my stereo at home.

you can argue that a good stereo will render 24bit audio just as well as 16bit audio...which is true, but at what expence?  And then when you have the two formats in front of you for A-B listening...you'll find it may not be worth it.

[macdaddy]

I record a lot of 24/96 too, but its for the simple factor of "I can" and the future thought of DVD audio playback. 

that is kind of why i do 16/48 - it is the highest i can go with my current setup...

i master the recordings as 16/48 WAVs, make an md5 for it and burn it to disc. then i resample/dither, and track the thing out as 16/44.1 for audio CD and then FLAC. this seems like the best of both worlds, and not that much extra work...

[F.O.Bean]

I record a lot of 24/96 too, but its for the simple factor of "I can" and the future thought of DVD audio playback. 

that is kind of why i do 16/48 - it is the highest i can go with my current setup...

i master the recordings as 16/48 WAVs, make an md5 for it and burn it to disc. then i resample/dither, and track the thing out as 16/44.1 for audio CD and then FLAC. this seems like the best of both worlds, and not that much extra work...

thats pretty much what i have done thus far

i put a marker at the beginning/end of each set and then FLAC it as a 48k master, then track/flac he 44.1k copy

[Swanny]

I used to do 48 but now I do 44, only for ease of transfer. I do notice a difference between the two though. I would rather have the apogee doing the dithering than a piece of software...

[BC]

I would rather have the apogee doing the dithering than a piece of software...

Just FYI:
you can use Apogee's UV22hr dithering algorithm in wavelab. It should have the same results.

Take care,
Ben

[Swampy]

I have a 48kHz DMIC-20, so Im stuck. I was really kind of getting sick of the downsampling. But after reading some of Walter Sear's papers, I came to agree with him on some stuff. I realized that 16/44.1 is gonna be dead soon, so I might as well be doing the highest I can. I know 2 track audience tapes aren't studio recordings, but I might as well do the best I can. When I took Jef's V3 to Allgood, I did 44.1 all weekend which was nice in post, just sit down and edit, but I think Ill stick to 48 now.

[jpschust]

I have a 48kHz DMIC-20, so Im stuck. I was really kind of getting sick of the downsampling. But after reading some of Walter Sear's papers, I came to agree with him on some stuff. I realized that 16/44.1 is gonna be dead soon, so I might as well be doing the highest I can. I know 2 track audience tapes aren't studio recordings, but I might as well do the best I can. When I took Jef's V3 to Allgood, I did 44.1 all weekend which was nice in post, just sit down and edit, but I think Ill stick to 48 now.

cant you change it to 44.1 by changing the dipswitches?

[Swampy]

I have a 48kHz DMIC-20, so Im stuck. I was really kind of getting sick of the downsampling. But after reading some of Walter Sear's papers, I came to agree with him on some stuff. I realized that 16/44.1 is gonna be dead soon, so I might as well be doing the highest I can. I know 2 track audience tapes aren't studio recordings, but I might as well do the best I can. When I took Jef's V3 to Allgood, I did 44.1 all weekend which was nice in post, just sit down and edit, but I think Ill stick to 48 now.

cant you change it to 44.1 by changing the dipswitches?

Nope, you have to change the crystal inside...

[jpschust]

ok, that's cool, never run one so i dont know them at all

[spcyrfc]

I did a few tests once, messing around with resampling and sampling rates.

AT853>UA-5>JB3

Resampling was done with Samplitude (known for it's ability to resample well).

48k definitely sounded better than 44.1k.
44.1k sounded much better than recording at 48k and resampling to 44.1k.

Have others found this to be true as well?  that 44.1 sounds better than resampling 48 to 44.1?

[rodeen]

Have others found this to be true as well?  that 44.1 sounds better than resampling 48 to 44.1?

It depends on what you use to resample the recording.  I've stopped using SoundForge because it
absolutely sucks the life out of a recording.  I like Audacity for resampling but the EQ pluggin was adding
pre-echo and post-echo.  Lately I've been using Adobe Audition and have been quite happy with it.

[pfife]

Have others found this to be true as well?  that 44.1 sounds better than resampling 48 to 44.1?

It depends on what you use to resample the recording.  I've stopped using SoundForge because it
absolutely sucks the life out of a recording. 

I solely use SoundForge 6.0, and have never experienced this.  What version do (or did) you use?

To me they sound the same.  I don't hear a difference in the quality between 44.1 and 48, but I record in 48 for potential mediums in the future.

[rodeen]

I was using SF v5.  As an experiment I took one song and rolled the bass off and resampled
from 48khz to 44.1khz.  I did this with SF 5, Audacity, Adobe Audition and GoldWave. 
To my ears Audition sounded the best, SF 5 the worst.  I was suprised because I really didn't
expect to be able to hear anything.  I've done this a few times with different recordings with
the same results.  Might just be my personal preference.  Give it a try, I'd be interested in your
opinion.

[wbrisette]

To me they sound the same.  I don't hear a difference in the quality between 44.1 and 48, but I record in 48 for potential mediums in the future.

Sound quality wise, there really is a negligable difference between 44.1 and 48K. In fact even jumping to 96K doesn't provide you much better sound quality (it's very slight). Where you gain the most "bang for your buck" is the jump from 16 bits to 24 bits. I really, really wish I had saved an email from the Logic list that the Emagic engineers posted a few years back. A couple of their DSP guys explained in detail why this was (had something to do with Nyquist Theorem).

Their take on it was forget about higher sampling rates and focus on higher bit rates. They felt the disk space required for higher sampling rates was a waste wereas the disk space required for higher bit rates was worth every MB.

Wayne

[MattD]

Comparatively speaking, the greater bit depth will help a recording more than an increased sample rate. However, at a given bit depth, the higher sample rate will sound more accurate. Whether or not 24/96 is worth 2x the space of 24/48 is probably up to the individual and how much drive space they have available for a show.

[BobW]

I archive at 24/highest rate I can muster, and burn CDs to listen to, trade, and give to performers.

Downsampling/word-length shortening isn't that big a drag, not as much as tracking.
Tracking is a pain.
Anybody who's got any tracking suggestions, please pass them on.

[F.O.Bean]

cd wave for tracking, nuf said, its the redbook standard