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.