Topic: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?

[DSatz]

That said ... there are potential technical advantages to sampling rates above 44.1 kHz--but not for the reasons claimed in that holy brick of a nonsense paragraph quoted above.

Let me recommend an AES paper called "Anti-alias and anti-image filtering: The benefits of 96kHz sampling rate formats for those who cannot hear above 20kHz" by the late Julian Dunn. That and several other well-written papers on related topics are indexed on http://www.nanophon.com/audio/ .

Despite this, I continue to record at 44.1 and I don't find that it limits my ability to get a good sound. There are plenty of perfectly gorgeous CD recordings out there. Logically, if there's even one good sounding 16-bit, 44.1 kHz recording in the entire world, then all the trash talk has been proved false once and for all. (Which, in my opinion, happened 25+ years ago already.)

--best regards

[KLowe]

That said ... there are potential technical advantages to sampling rates above 44.1 kHz--but not for the reasons claimed in that holy brick of a nonsense paragraph quoted above.

Let me recommend an AES paper called "Anti-alias and anti-image filtering: The benefits of 96kHz sampling rate formats for those who cannot hear above 20kHz" by the late Julian Dunn. That and several other well-written papers on related topics are indexed on http://www.nanophon.com/audio/ .

Despite this, I continue to record at 44.1 and I don't find that it limits my ability to get a good sound. There are plenty of perfectly gorgeous CD recordings out there. Logically, if there's even one good sounding 16-bit, 44.1 kHz recording in the entire world, then all the trash talk has been proved false once and for all. (Which, in my opinion, happened 25+ years ago already.)

--best regards

but....you do gotta admit that running at 24 sure is a bonus for the lazy taper (ie...set levels and forget).

Thanks DSatz....

Going to pour another glass of wine and do some reading 

[DSatz]

> you do gotta admit that running at 24 sure is a bonus for the lazy taper (ie...set levels and forget).

Not just for the lazy taper--also for the professional, perfectionist taper who has to deliver a 16-bit CD to the customer. I'm very fond of 24-bit recording because I can set my levels conservatively at the concert, not have to worry about overload or excess noise, and then I can redither and reduce to 16-bit at just the right peak level.

--best regards

[612]

Great thread. thanks all.

[Nick's Picks]

same.
44.1 for me.  if I go higher its 88.2.

the "uuber sample rates" are fun to play with but are not worth the storage space used or hassle in post to deal with. 
88.2 gives me the concept of "twice is nice" for my subjective consciousness to chew on when listening to the DVD-A copy.
but it also gives me a quick and dirty resample to redbook, which is 99.9999% of my listening.

[Jammin72]

Between the two, I like 24/48 simply because CD is a dead medium for me and I don't currently own a DVD-Audio player.  I can archive files at 24/48, use Audio DVD Creator to make a 24/48 Disc that will play back on any DVD Player I own, and process away for the files that end up on my iPod.  For the good ones in most cases I'd rather not have any 32bit floating point processing done to my signal if I can help it, most DAW's and quick tweaks seem to add some sort of noise or monkey with the signal in some way, at best it's a compromise.  I'm certain that if I were more skilled in that area or had access to a better processing engines/gear It would not be as much of an issue.

I'm still going to run some 24/96 where I think the sound may warrant "going for broke". 

[Gordon]

Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k

audio on a dvd HAS to be 48 or 96.

... I did not know that.  I always thought that DVD could do 44.1k.

Thanks and +t! 

Sounds like 24/44.1 is where it's at for audio.

you can still burn 24/44.1k DVD-Audio discs tho! or is that DVD-Video

I'm talking about dvd video

[Petrus]

I found a nicely done 16/44 versus 24/96 test file at http://hosted.filefront.com/Jullepoika/

It is a continuous 14 minute 24/96 audio file cut in 30 second segments, some or them 16/44.1 resolution, others original 24/96 "Linn studio master" quality. The idea is to pick out the difference just by listening. No comparators etc needed, just a 24/96 capable system. There are two files, a 470 MB .WAV and a .TXT explaning the procedure used in making the file. Try it!

[grtphl]

anyone have a track that alternates between 16/44.1 and and 24/96 sources a few times throughout playback?

[DSatz]

gratephul, if the material in an A/B comparison of this type was recorded through one input filter for the 44.1 kHz recording and a different filter for 96 kHz, then it's a comparison of two different filters as much as it is a comparison of two different sampling rates, no?

I'd like to hear an A/B comparison between two recordings made at different sampling rates, but with the same input filters being used for both. That would be a test of the sampling rates, not the filters.

--best regards

[Dede2002]

That said ... there are potential technical advantages to sampling rates above 44.1 kHz--but not for the reasons claimed in that holy brick of a nonsense paragraph quoted above.

Let me recommend an AES paper called "Anti-alias and anti-image filtering: The benefits of 96kHz sampling rate formats for those who cannot hear above 20kHz" by the late Julian Dunn. That and several other well-written papers on related topics are indexed on http://www.nanophon.com/audio/ .

Despite this, I continue to record at 44.1 and I don't find that it limits my ability to get a good sound. There are plenty of perfectly gorgeous CD recordings out there. Logically, if there's even one good sounding 16-bit, 44.1 kHz recording in the entire world, then all the trash talk has been proved false once and for all. (Which, in my opinion, happened 25+ years ago already.)

--best regards

Thanks for the www.nanophon.com link . Awesome reading. (I guess this post is going to cost me another ticket. Minus 7 tickets since yesterday...)

[Petrus]

anyone have a track that alternates between 16/44.1 and and 24/96 sources a few times throughout playback?

The file I mentioned does just that. Originally a 24/96 file, but some 30 second sections are resampled to 16/44.1. The idea is to try to hear where the material is 16/44 and where 24/96. Of course the file format is 24/96 to make it possible to play is as one file, but the actual resolution in places is 16/44.1.

I can not hear any difference, not even the cuts.

When downloading it download also the small explanation .txt file.

[svenkid]

lol, I have many 16/44 flac dvd-audio discs.

[Dede2002]

That said ... there are potential technical advantages to sampling rates above 44.1 kHz--but not for the reasons claimed in that holy brick of a nonsense paragraph quoted above.

Let me recommend an AES paper called "Anti-alias and anti-image filtering: The benefits of 96kHz sampling rate formats for those who cannot hear above 20kHz" by the late Julian Dunn. That and several other well-written papers on related topics are indexed on http://www.nanophon.com/audio/ .

Despite this, I continue to record at 44.1 and I don't find that it limits my ability to get a good sound. There are plenty of perfectly gorgeous CD recordings out there. Logically, if there's even one good sounding 16-bit, 44.1 kHz recording in the entire world, then all the trash talk has been proved false once and for all. (Which, in my opinion, happened 25+ years ago already.)

--best regards

Thanks for the www.nanophon.com link . Awesome reading. (I guess this post is going to cost me another ticket. Minus 7 tickets since yesterday...)

Thanks everyone .Very kind of you.

[digifish_music]

Here's a very interesting summary of 16 vs 24 bit recording of low level sources...with examples

http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/LowSaturation/LowFieldSaturation2.html

Make sure you read right to the end.

digifish