Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: 16/44.1 vs. 16/48  (Read 2630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BobW

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
16/44.1 vs. 16/48
« on: November 04, 2005, 09:21:33 AM »
I've never had the chance to do a very serious ABx comparison of  16/44.1 against 16/48 with a solid source.

Perhaps regrettably, along comes the new Trey album on DualDisk with a DVD-V side of 16/48 Enhanced Stereo and a 16/44.1 CD side.
I say regrettably because 16/48 seems like a waste of a good DVD-V.
I'm guessing that PC compatibility for 16 bit cards was the driver.... but I digress.

So here I have identical studio recordings to compare.  16/44 v. 16/48.

Is the higher sampling rate discernable ?

Absolutely.  Cymbals, sibalants, anything at the very top end was immediately and repeatably heard.
The CD side "whites-out" all through "Spin." The DVD-V at 16/48 is much more transparent.
By far the best comparison that I've heard.

Surprise !  Even old ears can tell.

Now laugh at those earplugs I wore under the stadium stacks at all of the dead shows in the 80's....   :D

I wonder what a 24/96 or 24/196 source would have sounded like.   :-\

Offline JasonSobel

  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3329
  • Gender: Male
    • My show list
Re: 16/44.1 vs. 16/48
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2005, 10:47:43 AM »
here is one thing that I'm wondering, and something to ponder.

for arguments sake, lets say that the 48kHz is indeed better then 44.1kHz, just as you say.

Is the difference you hear because 48kHz has a slightly better frequency response, or are you hearing the differences because of small artifacts left over from the conversion process from 48kHz to 44.1kHz (assuming that the original recording was at 48, and that at some point, they had to resample to get to 44.1).

an absolute comparison of 48 vs 44.1 would require a split analog signal and two identical A/D converters.  one of the A/D converters running at 44.1 and the other running at 48.  that way, the two could be compared without the 44.1 version going through the extra computer processing.

All that said, I suspect that the small artifacts from the conversion process is what you are hearing.  ever since I got a DVD burner, I've been burning DVD-Audio discs of 16/48 sources from my DAT recordings.  by comparing them with the 16/44.1 resampled version, I do prefer the original 16/48 version.  a bit "cleaner", I'd say.  (although I'm not the best at describing in words what I hear.)  There have even been a few 16/48 sources BT'ed on etree (one great sounding JGB show, for example), and it's great to see shows circulating that are truely *identical* to the original recording...

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18841
  • Gender: Male
Re: 16/44.1 vs. 16/48
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2005, 11:03:58 AM »
here is one thing that I'm wondering, and something to ponder. [snip]

Very good point.  I did some testing a ways back and found I preferred the V3 at 16/44 v. the V3 at 16/48 and resampling in s/w to 44.  For me, the big jump is from 16- to 24-bit, and I've now made that jump and loving it!
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

BobW

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 16/44.1 vs. 16/48
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2005, 02:01:57 PM »
I've never made a 16 bit recording !  Only transfers and downsamples.
Oh, and of course, analog...

Great point about processing versus media.  I also needed different playback codecs because of the format differences.
I was using the lappy with a pair of Senns for tests.

Artifacts from Antialiasing Filtering during downsampling may be the cause, but would the master ever have been 16/48 to start with ?
Perhaps downsampling from 24/96 master to 44.1 kHz was the cause. The 48kHz even-multiple may have been less distorting.

Nyquist limit is still a strong suspect. We are talking about top-end response affecting aural experience on the top-end.
Never blanketly accept the obvious, but never discount it either.

I am going to test more, including on the home system.
I think that I may try to do an mono 24/192 omni recording of both sources from the speakers of the home system and look at it on a spec analyzer.

Offline willndmb

  • Trade Count: (17)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6649
  • Gender: Male
Re: 16/44.1 vs. 16/48
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2005, 08:31:58 PM »
i have a question about recording 48 vs 44
is there any real advantage to recording 48 vs 44 into a jb3?

if i don't plan on using it on a dvd why else would 48 be better then 44?

if i did record 48 over 44, how would i save it? just on my hd?

thanks guys
Mics - AKG ck61/ck63 (c480b & Naiant actives), SP-BMC-2
XLR Cables - Silver Path w/Darktrain stubbies
Interconnect Cables - Dogstar (XLR), Darktrain (RCA > 1/8) (1/8 > 1/8), and Kind Kables (1/8f > 1/4)
Preamps - Naiant Littlebox & Tinybox
Recorders - PCM-M10 & DR-60D

BobW

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 16/44.1 vs. 16/48
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2005, 10:15:16 PM »
If I record for CD, I use 44.1 , 88.2 or 176.4 sampling rates.
This is supposed to make for cleaner downsampling or none at all.

The theorectical difference in going from 44 to 48 is frequency response top of 22kHz to 24kHz.
FM radio broadcasts used a stereo pilot tone at 19kHz because it was above the range of hearing.....

44.1 or 48  is a hot subject of debate.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.175 seconds with 33 queries.
© 2002-2018 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF