Topic: 44.1 versus 48

[pfife]

I also have many shows that, whether or not they're my cup of tea, I was the only taper. I was just contacted by a non friendly taper band that I stealthed, that I have on my list.. their management wants a copy. =]

Tell them you'll give it to them if the open their policy... 

[taperkat]

that's the actual idea, the band knew I was taping, the management didn't...

[Karl]

I did a few tests once, messing around with resampling and sampling rates.

AT853>UA-5>JB3

Resampling was done with Samplitude (known for it's ability to resample well).

48k definitely sounded better than 44.1k.
44.1k sounded much better than recording at 48k and resampling to 44.1k.

I think it comes down to what you do with the recordings.  If you are primarily going to play back on CD, you should always record at 44.1.  If you are going to be using DVD, you should be at 48.  If you are really worried about archiving to preserve for future generations, then you should try to do 48k.

[Karl]

I also have a feeling that if you are primarily going to listen back on CD, that you would be better off recording at 44.1k rather than 96k.

[Nick's Picks]

those of you who say "48k is better even though I cant hear it" need to re-think their logic.

I have routinely recorded 24/44.1 for the ease of redbook mastering.  And for 24bit playback, it still sounds superior to 16/44.1.
High sample rates....the jury is out.  I record a lot of 24/96 too, but its for the simple factor of "I can" and the future thought of DVD audio playback. 

A good CD player or DAC renders 24bit audio as almost useless comparred to 16bit.  The better this D/A stage becomes, the thinner the line between the two.  I've tought myself this countless times over and over on my stereo at home.

you can argue that a good stereo will render 24bit audio just as well as 16bit audio...which is true, but at what expence?  And then when you have the two formats in front of you for A-B listening...you'll find it may not be worth it.

[macdaddy]

I record a lot of 24/96 too, but its for the simple factor of "I can" and the future thought of DVD audio playback. 

that is kind of why i do 16/48 - it is the highest i can go with my current setup...

i master the recordings as 16/48 WAVs, make an md5 for it and burn it to disc. then i resample/dither, and track the thing out as 16/44.1 for audio CD and then FLAC. this seems like the best of both worlds, and not that much extra work...

[F.O.Bean]

I record a lot of 24/96 too, but its for the simple factor of "I can" and the future thought of DVD audio playback. 

that is kind of why i do 16/48 - it is the highest i can go with my current setup...

i master the recordings as 16/48 WAVs, make an md5 for it and burn it to disc. then i resample/dither, and track the thing out as 16/44.1 for audio CD and then FLAC. this seems like the best of both worlds, and not that much extra work...

thats pretty much what i have done thus far

i put a marker at the beginning/end of each set and then FLAC it as a 48k master, then track/flac he 44.1k copy

[Swanny]

I used to do 48 but now I do 44, only for ease of transfer. I do notice a difference between the two though. I would rather have the apogee doing the dithering than a piece of software...

[BC]

I would rather have the apogee doing the dithering than a piece of software...

Just FYI:
you can use Apogee's UV22hr dithering algorithm in wavelab. It should have the same results.

Take care,
Ben

[Swampy]

I have a 48kHz DMIC-20, so Im stuck. I was really kind of getting sick of the downsampling. But after reading some of Walter Sear's papers, I came to agree with him on some stuff. I realized that 16/44.1 is gonna be dead soon, so I might as well be doing the highest I can. I know 2 track audience tapes aren't studio recordings, but I might as well do the best I can. When I took Jef's V3 to Allgood, I did 44.1 all weekend which was nice in post, just sit down and edit, but I think Ill stick to 48 now.

[jpschust]

I have a 48kHz DMIC-20, so Im stuck. I was really kind of getting sick of the downsampling. But after reading some of Walter Sear's papers, I came to agree with him on some stuff. I realized that 16/44.1 is gonna be dead soon, so I might as well be doing the highest I can. I know 2 track audience tapes aren't studio recordings, but I might as well do the best I can. When I took Jef's V3 to Allgood, I did 44.1 all weekend which was nice in post, just sit down and edit, but I think Ill stick to 48 now.

cant you change it to 44.1 by changing the dipswitches?

[Swampy]

I have a 48kHz DMIC-20, so Im stuck. I was really kind of getting sick of the downsampling. But after reading some of Walter Sear's papers, I came to agree with him on some stuff. I realized that 16/44.1 is gonna be dead soon, so I might as well be doing the highest I can. I know 2 track audience tapes aren't studio recordings, but I might as well do the best I can. When I took Jef's V3 to Allgood, I did 44.1 all weekend which was nice in post, just sit down and edit, but I think Ill stick to 48 now.

cant you change it to 44.1 by changing the dipswitches?

Nope, you have to change the crystal inside...

[jpschust]

ok, that's cool, never run one so i dont know them at all

[spcyrfc]

I did a few tests once, messing around with resampling and sampling rates.

AT853>UA-5>JB3

Resampling was done with Samplitude (known for it's ability to resample well).

48k definitely sounded better than 44.1k.
44.1k sounded much better than recording at 48k and resampling to 44.1k.

Have others found this to be true as well?  that 44.1 sounds better than resampling 48 to 44.1?

[rodeen]

Have others found this to be true as well?  that 44.1 sounds better than resampling 48 to 44.1?

It depends on what you use to resample the recording.  I've stopped using SoundForge because it
absolutely sucks the life out of a recording.  I like Audacity for resampling but the EQ pluggin was adding
pre-echo and post-echo.  Lately I've been using Adobe Audition and have been quite happy with it.