Author Topic: 48 Khz or 44.1 Khz? (Read 7632 times)

phishn · « **on:** February 25, 2004, 02:45:12 PM »

Ok..I have been taping at 48 Khz and for the most part have never listened to the dats directly or the 48 Khz files. My question..If I'm mostly listening to audio cd's, and seeding shows at 44.1 Khz, am I better off recording directly to 44.1 Khz?

Second question. If i do record to 48 Khz, which is higher quality and down sample to 44.1 Khz, will the downsampled 44.1 Khz file be a better quality than if I recorded at 44.1 Khz directly?

phishn · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:46:17 PM »

^^ my original intention to keep 48 K files is for DVD-A. Now that I know DVD-A starts at 24/96 what would be the advantage of recording at 48 Khz?

Chanher · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:47:48 PM »

I believe it is common practice to record at 48 kHz and then use software to > 44.1 if you plan to listen on CD.

phishn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2004, 02:59:41 PM »

but since a resampled 48 khz file has been "messed around with" to remove "something" to get it to 44.1 khz....wouldnt it be a lower quality theoretically than just recording at 44.1 khz directly?

hoobash · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:04:45 PM »

I prefer to record at 44.1 since I do all my listening on cd. I challege anyone to tell the dif between 44.1 and 48. I know people will post they can tell but they cant

Chuck · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:09:42 PM »

Does anyone know if converting on the fly through your soundcard is any better or worse, than doing a software conversion? I always assumed that hardware conversion wasn't as accurate...

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:13:48 PM »

Quote from: hoobash on February 25, 2004, 03:04:45 PM

I know people will post they can tell but they cant

That's a bold statement given you don't know anything about people's playback systems, rooms, or ears/brains. As I've upgraded my playback system, I'm hearing things I never heard before and noticing changes in gear which according to many shouldn't have an impact. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find people able to hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz. I'll bite my tongue on the rest of my comments as I used my grumpy comment of the day on Ogre Marc from Minneapoland.

At any rate, I record to 44.1kHz because I [1] do all my listening on CD, [2] don't have a playback system set up for 48kHz, [3] would rather have the V3 output 44.1kHz directly than resample on my PC.

mattb · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:15:03 PM »

I think it depends on the hardware and the software. Pro level hardware should be able to do a good job, but something like CoolEdit Pro or 2k should be just as good, but it may be slower if your system isn't really fast. I used to just record 44.1 to DAT so I didn't have to worry about it. With my JB3 I'm running a 44.1 a/d so I have no choice and I still don't worry aout it.
"What? Me worry?"

phishn · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:19:47 PM »

im doing away with the dat and just bought bean's jb3...anyhows..i thought of this cause the jb3 makes things easy..recording at 44.1 makes things even easier..just track, flac, seed away.

Nick Graham · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:40:55 PM »

Just to echo the above sentiments...if you don't ever listen to the DATs, don't plan on storing the 48k files, or you're planning on immediately transferring to CD...just record to 44.1. That's how they'll end up anyway, no point on possibly introducing errors during the resampling.

phishn · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2004, 05:01:41 PM »

i think ill stick with 44.1 for now..and make the jump to 24/96 when the time comes. It would be totally awesome if creative labs in the future supported 24/96 and higher bitrates possibly with firmware for the jb3..or some other new unit. Avoiding bringing a laptop to a show is what I'm targeting for...just too many things that screw up with computers.

firmdragon · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2004, 02:20:52 AM »

dvds can take 48khz PCM. so i exclusively tape in 48khz and have been for a while. you don't lose anything (except time in converting), so i figure why not. in the future if the industry standard has a higher rate (ie 48khz) then i'm covered, if they don't and it stays at 44.1 i'll keep downsampling.

hoobash · « **Reply #12 on:** February 26, 2004, 11:33:44 AM »

Its just my opinion. I didnt mean to offend.

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on February 25, 2004, 03:13:48 PM

Quote from: hoobash on February 25, 2004, 03:04:45 PM
I know people will post they can tell but they cant

That's a bold statement given you don't know anything about people's playback systems, rooms, or ears/brains. As I've upgraded my playback system, I'm hearing things I never heard before and noticing changes in gear which according to many shouldn't have an impact. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find people able to hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 48kHz. I'll bite my tongue on the rest of my comments as I used my grumpy comment of the day on Ogre Marc from Minneapoland.

At any rate, I record to 44.1kHz because I [1] do all my listening on CD, [2] don't have a playback system set up for 48kHz, [3] would rather have the V3 output 44.1kHz directly than resample on my PC.

whitenite · « **Reply #13 on:** February 26, 2004, 08:37:10 PM »

Quote from: calico on February 25, 2004, 03:09:42 PM

Does anyone know if converting on the fly through your soundcard is any better or worse, than doing a software conversion? I always assumed that hardware conversion wasn't as accurate...

good rule of thumb is to do software resample.

save · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2004, 12:03:43 AM »

even w/ a really high end playback system can you really hear the diff between 16/44.1 & 16/48? my playback system isn't exactly high end so i can't really comment on this...i've just been wondering the same thing as phishn. i always record @ 16/44.1 b/c i don't want to spend the extra time downsampling when i can't tell the diff.

cpclark · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2004, 02:12:06 AM »

i use to use 44.1 when i used the ad-20, then when i got the mp-2 and v2 i ran 48 and after transfering and converting to 44.1, i could tell a slight difference in quality on my playback systema after downsampling in soundforge 6, just my .02 and why not get that extra sample in your recording

Sean Gallemore · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2004, 04:15:47 AM »

you guys are missing out on over 3,500 samples per second!

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2004, 09:00:38 AM »

Quote from: Schwillberitis on February 27, 2004, 04:15:47 AM

you guys are missing out on over 3,500 samples per second!

that-a-boy

Cooker · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2004, 11:06:32 AM »

DVD-A can contain 48K PCM. I'm, glad i record at 48K.

Now if i had a JB3 i'd probably record at 44.1 - i wouldn't be into keeping two sets of master FLACs around for each show....

phishn · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2004, 09:34:55 PM »

Ok..only thing that concerns me about 48 khz is that when you resample to 44.1 khz, you are throwing away 3500 samples per second with some kind of statistical averaging. Wouldn't it be better to have the recording device write the bitstream straight out at 44.1? In a nutshell, the downsampling will not be identical to the straight out 44.1 recording.

chase · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2004, 01:33:50 AM »

bit for bit they won't be the same but it really depends on *how* it determines which bits get tossed. i seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference between straight 44.1 and the same tape run at 48 then resampled. i really think this isn't all that important. if you want 48kHz, run at 48 and resample, if you want to save time, run at 44.1

btw greg, i finally got around to doing some more testing on the dmic that died. it appears the noise was coming from one of the chips in the board. i noticed that the underside of the board was partially fried underneath all the pins, and when i touched the chip it was extremely hot. hopefully i can get someone in the EE lab to help me figure out what's wrong, sure glad i didn't trade it to someone for some blank discs.

Karl · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2004, 11:48:21 AM »

There are plenty of people who can tell a recording that has been resampled. If you are spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for high-end recording equipment, why would you hurt yourself by resampling? Personally, I do all of my recording at 44.1, because I listen to everything off of CD. I would be missing quality if I recorded at 48 and then just resampled so I could listen with CD's.

Lil Kim Jong-Il · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2004, 01:33:51 PM »

Go with the highest possible resolution capture.

Later you can take resolution away, but you can't put it back.

phishn · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2004, 01:38:41 PM »

how do you take resolution away from 48 and have the 44.1 file be identical to one that could be recorded directly to 44.1 k with the taping gear? hope statistical averaging doesn't smooth out and remove any samples that are important to the recording. This is my only arguement to NOT resample and record directly to 44.1 since thats what I and everyone else listens to most of the time.

Lil Kim Jong-Il · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2004, 02:18:52 PM »

Quote from: phishn on March 02, 2004, 01:38:41 PM

how do you take resolution away from 48 and have the 44.1 file be identical to one that could be recorded directly to 44.1 k with the taping gear? hope statistical averaging doesn't smooth out and remove any samples that are important to the recording. This is my only arguement to NOT resample and record directly to 44.1 since thats what I and everyone else listens to most of the time.

I doubt that you could ever resample later and get the exact same file that would be natively produced when recording at the lower rate. I expect a 48k sample resampled to 44.1k to not sound the same as a native 44.1k recording but you might not hear that on low res systems or in the car. So you might think that it is better to just record at 44.1k and save yourself the extra step and questionable results of a resample.

But don't assume that CDs/44.1k are here to stay and thats all you will want to listen to. DVD is becoming the dominant format and DVD players are as cheap as CD players now. At some point you'll want to step up to DVD. When you do, you will want better source material - the material at 48K - for your DVDs. At that point, upsampling from 44.1k may get you a better sound, but it won't have all the original information that you could have had if you recorded at 48k originally.

Look at it this way. Alot of guys taped using high end RR recorders, even though they knew that would always use cassettes in the car and for trading. So why bother with the big RR? When CDs became ubiquitous, almost everyone could enjoy the higher resolution of those recordings that were moved to digital from the high resolution RR source. So aren't we all better off that they didn't use cassettes to master those shows?

dklein · « **Reply #25 on:** March 03, 2004, 01:01:34 AM »

Quote from: calico on February 25, 2004, 03:09:42 PM

Does anyone know if converting on the fly through your soundcard is any better or worse, than doing a software conversion? I always assumed that hardware conversion wasn't as accurate...

I believe hardware conversion is generally not as good. Software will employ more recent algorithms. In the old days hardware had the advantage of speed. Kinda like video today!

Ed. · « **Reply #26 on:** March 03, 2004, 01:32:11 AM »

Quote from: Karl on March 02, 2004, 11:48:21 AM

There are plenty of people who can tell a recording that has been resampled. If you are spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for high-end recording equipment, why would you hurt yourself by resampling? Personally, I do all of my recording at 44.1, because I listen to everything off of CD. I would be missing quality if I recorded at 48 and then just resampled so I could listen with CD's.

fair enuf, but if you're dropping thousands and thousands of dollars on recording equipment and thousands more on playback equipment, why not add a computer into your playback equipment. you can network it to your other computers or even store files on it...put a dvd drive and save your recordings as .flac files on that. you can easily playback 24/48, 24/96, or even 24/192 flac files now on your playback system.

ed

Willie T. · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2004, 08:54:22 AM »

All frequencies above one-half of your sampling rate become aliased and appear as lower frequncies in the sampled signal. This is an inaccuracy that can never be recovered when trying to reconstruct the origianl waveform. So go for the 48 sampling rate, that way when you do down sample, you should should not have the aliasing that would occur from a direct 44.1 recording. This link talks a little bit more about why the standard sampling rates were choosen. http://www.promastering.com/pages/techtalk_mac/tt-3_mac.html

Willie T. · « **Reply #28 on:** March 04, 2004, 09:13:39 AM »

here is another site that explains a little: http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~book/MATCpages/chap.2/2.3.samp_theory.html

silentmark · « **Reply #29 on:** March 04, 2004, 09:21:00 AM »

sorry to be off topic here but wtreynol, where is your avatar from, lol, funny stuff ... as far as my two cents goes, I do 44.1 and will continue to do so until the market says otherwise ...

Willie T. · « **Reply #30 on:** March 04, 2004, 09:40:30 AM »

it's from a commercial, i don't remember the site i got it from but they had alot more, and I think the market has made the move to higher sampling rates DVD-As can have 2 channels at 192khz, and DVD-V can get 96khz.

Author Topic: 48 Khz or 44.1 Khz? (Read 7632 times)

cpclark