Topic: Dithering and mixdown to 44.1 from 48kHz - why not just record in 44.1?

[Belexes]

I do the 16/44 thing for the Masses, so they can burn their CDRs. 

With the CD format going away, I am thinking of not dithering anymore when I share to the masses.  Storage is cheap.

[darby]

I do the 16/44 thing for the Masses, so they can burn their CDRs. 

With the CD format going away, I am thinking of not dithering anymore when I share to the masses.  Storage is cheap.

I haven't burned CDs for myself in years
as far as the masses... unfortunately it seems most folks would rather have MP3s than CDs 
I still do 16/44s for some people, but most get the FLACs off my 24/48s

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

I do the 16/44 thing for the Masses, so they can burn their CDRs. 

With the CD format going away, I am thinking of not dithering anymore when I share to the masses.  Storage is cheap.

I would tend to agree, since I haven't burned a real CD in over a year (occasional do one for my wife)...  But I think 16/44 is a good standard that most everyone is familiar with...  And I don't want to mess with the system, since that's what everyone is used to...  If someone wants my 16/48 or higher files, they can ask me...  although they never have before...

Terry

[page]

I do the 16/44 thing for the Masses, so they can burn their CDRs. 

With the CD format going away, I am thinking of not dithering anymore when I share to the masses.  Storage is cheap.

I would tend to agree, since I haven't burned a real CD in over a year (occasional do one for my wife)...  But I think 16/44 is a good standard that most everyone is familiar with...  And I don't want to mess with the system, since that's what everyone is used to...  If someone wants my 16/48 or higher files, they can ask me...  although they never have before...

Terry

and while storage is cheap, it's still a wench to transfer 1.6gb across the wire just to listen once or twice. Not much makes permanent rotation in my book, and the few things that do, I'd go after a better copy if I thought it would improve the experience.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

as far as the masses... unfortunately it seems most folks would rather have MP3s than CDs 

I have a long history of being a snob about MP3s but since I take music in the car using the iPhone I have completely changed my attitude.  Over the FM transmitter it doesn't matter.

[rjp]

I have a long history of being a snob about MP3s but since I take music in the car using the iPhone I have completely changed my attitude.  Over the FM transmitter it doesn't matter.

My recently-purchased car came with a stereo that will play MP3s burned to a data disc. Pluses: lots of music can fit on a disc (I usually use 192K CBR for car applications), and it has no problem with 48 kHz material. Minuses: they didn't bother implementing gapless playback, and the display won't scroll for titles/artists that are too long to fit.

[scb]

there are 2 different things going on in this thread. as "notlance" said, going from a higher sampling rate to 44.1 is resampling, while going from a higher bit rate usually involves adding dither (without dither it's just called truncation).

if you want to record in 44.1, go ahead.  But if your recorder can record at 24 bits, I recommend that.  It gives you much higher headroom.  You can run the levels lower and still be using more than 16 bits. If you record at 16 bit, you really need to be cranking your levels to get close to 16 bit resolution. 

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

(without dither it's just called truncation).

If I may be pedantic, it's linear scaling.  Truncation of the samples would result in a discontinuous waveform.

[scb]

smartass!

[SmokinJoe]

I always think of resampling like this.... you are back in third grade with graph paper, a pencil, and a ruler.  The teacher gives you a bunch of XY coordinates, and then asks you to interpolate other values in between by following the lines in between.  You can do it, but it's not an exact science.  This certainly doesn't improve accuracy, that's for sure.  So don't do it unless there is a good reason to.

While I'm sure some people will cringe at this next statement... I don't figure it's any more of a "sin" to convert 44.1 -> 48 than it is to convert 48 -> 44.1 (assuming there really isn't any data in there above 20k, and I don't think there is on my recordings) because all I'm doing to converting format for compatibility purposes either way.


(this picture serves no purpose other than to visualize how ridiculous it would be to plot points on graph paper and interpolate)

[page]

I don't figure it's any more of a "sin" to convert 44.1 -> 48 than it is to convert 48 -> 44.1 (assuming there really isn't any data in there above 20k, and I don't think there is on my recordings) because all I'm doing to converting format for compatibility purposes either way.

I agree, especially if I'm happy with 44.1 to start with.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I don't figure it's any more of a "sin" to convert 44.1 -> 48 than it is to convert 48 -> 44.1

It's not.  But if the target is a 24-bit DVDV disk, resampling from 44.1 adds an additional step to the authoring process.

[tapeheadtoo]

If you plan to circulate your recordings on CD or DVDA, then you you can record at 44.1 and put the tracks directly to disk.  If you want to use your recording as an LPCM track on a video DVD, the spec allows only a 48k or 96k sample rate. 

I'm a little confused about this.  I typically record audio at 24/44.1.   I am able to sync the audio file perfectly to my 16-bit video for a video DVD.  The final audio format is LPCM, 16bit, 48khz.  It seems that my master audio being at 44.1 has no detrimental effect on the final output (at least none that I can see or hear).  Or does it? 

[page]

If you plan to circulate your recordings on CD or DVDA, then you you can record at 44.1 and put the tracks directly to disk.  If you want to use your recording as an LPCM track on a video DVD, the spec allows only a 48k or 96k sample rate. 

I'm a little confused about this.  I typically record audio at 24/44.1.   I am able to sync the audio file perfectly to my 16-bit video for a video DVD.  The final audio format is LPCM, 16bit, 48khz.  It seems that my master audio being at 44.1 has no detrimental effect on the final output (at least none that I can see or hear).  Or does it?

his point is that if your end product is going to be in the 48k realm, then recording to 48k accomplishes two things;

1) Saves you work/a step/processing time delay of resampling. Your software may do this for you or you may have an uber fast PC in which case it probably doens't matter.
2) Saves information in the 23khz area that would be discarded had you gone to 44.1 anywhere in the process.

Whether you can hear that information in the bands between 22khz and 24khz is dependant upon each person. If you can't hear a difference (I can't, I've tried), and nobody has said anything, then I wouldn't worry about it.

[taperj]

If I may be pedantic, it's linear scaling.  Truncation of the samples would result in a discontinuous waveform.

Could you elaborate on this? I guess I'm confused as to why does the Sound Devices manual, wikipedia, and all other documentation I can find say it's truncation then? Just wanting clarification since most trusted sources say otherwise.