Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: 48 kHz vs 44.1 kHz sample rate  (Read 6406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline checht

  • (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Gender: Male
  • Old and in the Way
48 kHz vs 44.1 kHz sample rate
« on: September 13, 2020, 06:19:20 PM »
Recently had a bit of time to think through my recording practices 😀. A few years ago I switched to recording 24/48 rather than 24/96, feeling like the trade offs made sense for me.

Now I’m wondering about 44.1. Mostly, trying to figure out if there’s a significant quality difference from 48 kHz, one that’s large enough to offset any quality reduction from downsampling. I’m unclear on quality difference between the rates, and whether downsampling algorithms degrade sound quality.

Thoughts? What else should I be considering?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 08:32:57 PM by checht »
Schoeps MK41s > nbob KCY >
Naiant PFA 60v > Sound Devices MP-6  or  Naiant IPA > Roland R-07

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3054
  • Gender: Male
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2020, 08:34:59 PM »
Are you asking about down-sampling some existing 48 kHz recordings to 44.1 kHz? There could be reasons to do that, but I wouldn't do it unless it was necessary, e.g. if a bunch of your friends unearthed a trove of CD players, and wanted to throw a 1980s party and listen to your recordings that way.

As far as 44.1 vs. 48 kHz for an original recording is concerned, there shouldn't be enough sonic difference to be detectable by a human listener. If there is, the equipment (or your process of making the judgment) is suspect IMO. Once the sampling rate exceeds 2x the highest frequency being sampled, the only audible differences should be in the side effects of the anti-imaging and anti-aliasing filters. The whole decades-long saga over sampling rates is really about filtering, not sampling. In general there are tradeoffs between the frequency-domain and time-domain behavior of any filter (analog or digital). There are dynamic range and distortion considerations as well.

For digital filters, some important optimization constraints relax if the sampling frequency is raised. But the <10% difference between 44.1 and 48 kHz isn't enough to matter in that way. You'd need to go to (maybe) 60 or 64 kHz before you're totally "in the clear" for real-world program material. Thus we have 96 kHz as a professional standard--plus the usual assortment of people who think that no sampling rate is ever high enough, because they misunderstand sampling theory, i.e. they imagine that it becomes "closer to analog" the higher you raise the rate, which isn't how digital audio works.

All the potential sonic problems of filters become less if their design is less aggressive (fewer "poles"). Few live, acoustic signals have significant energy at 20 kHz or above, and those that do are rarely recorded close-up by consumers using microphones capable of conveying 20+ kHz signal components. So as a generality, there should be less need for aggressive filtering, and correspondingly less "need" for 96 kHz sampling in consumer recording equipment (i.e. to shove the filter problems brute-force up out of the audible range). For better or worse, though, manufacturers tend to design equipment for worst-case scenarios, and unfortunately, this aspect of recording equipment, though readily measurable, isn't usually described in spec sheets or on-line reviews.

--best regards
« Last Edit: September 14, 2020, 11:28:21 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline jerryfreak

  • (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2020, 09:25:19 PM »
id go by end rate of your project

id take native 44.1 over 48K resampled to 44.1 personally

People whose posts I wont see:
 capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62, Dr. Bickart

Offline Sebastian

  • (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1417
  • Gender: Male
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2020, 04:24:24 AM »
I went from 96 kHz to 48 to 44.1 in the last couple of years. 96 kHz just took up too much space and required too much processing time with no audible benefits. And since most of my recording have 16 bit/44.1 kHz as their final format, it made sense to me to also record in that format. And I can avoid resampling this way.
Schoeps { MK6 | MK41V | MK4 } > NBob actives > {Naiant Tinybox v2.0 | Naiant IPA | Naiant PFAs} > {Sound Devices MixPre-6 | Sony PCM-A10 | Sony PCM-M10 | Tascam DR-2d}

Recordings:
Live Music Archive | DaD Torrents | TTD Torrents | Etree Torrents

Offline checht

  • (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Gender: Male
  • Old and in the Way
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2020, 08:40:38 AM »
I went from 96 kHz to 48 to 44.1 in the last couple of years. 96 kHz just took up too much space and required too much processing time with no audible benefits. And since most of my recording have 16 bit/44.1 kHz as their final format, it made sense to me to also record in that format. And I can avoid resampling this way.

This was my contemplated path prior to starting the thread. Now reconsidering my practice of releasing 16/44.1 versions. DSatz pointed out my logical error; not likely that anyone's making optical discs any more, except of those vintage Duran Duran shows...

Hmmm, maybe 16/48 releases so they're easy to sync with video, which does happen once in a while.
Schoeps MK41s > nbob KCY >
Naiant PFA 60v > Sound Devices MP-6  or  Naiant IPA > Roland R-07

Offline rippleish20

  • (22)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2020, 10:12:11 AM »
I record and post at 24/48 ; it seems to me i nthis day and age people should be able to handle this...
Schoeps CMC6 (MK22's) / AKG C480B (ck61, ck63, ck8) /  Neumann KM100 (AK40, AK50) / Audio Technica AT4050ST/ AT853s  (cardiod, omni) / CA-14 (cardiod) / CA-11 (Omni) /
Mixpre-10t / Mixpre-6 / Roland R-07 /Tascam DR-100mkIII /

Offline Papaphunk

  • (8)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 612
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2020, 10:20:05 AM »
I record in 24 Bit/44.1 gives me about 2 hours 15 minutes recording time for each set. 24/48 gives me about 2 hours 5 minutes, and alleviates the headaches of having to add on that extra encore to the 24/48 recording I've found. Relistening difference is negligble imho.
****************************************************
AKG CK-61 / AKG CK-63 ULS Caps > AKG c480b Bodies
Studio Projects C4 Hyper/Card/Omni Caps
CA-11 Omni's  - CA 9200 PreAmp
Busman MOD Tascam DR-70D - TASCAM DR-100MKII & III
****************************************************

900 Recordings on archive: https://archive.org/details/@papaphunk

Offline heathen

  • (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3203
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2020, 11:07:46 AM »
I record and post at 24/48 ; it seems to me i nthis day and age people should be able to handle this...

Up until recently I was distributing everything in 16/44.1 (recording in 24/48), but then I came to the realization that you're pointing out.  I record in 24/48 and I'll generally distribute stuff in 16/48.
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 | CA-14 omni Pres: CA9200 | DPA d:vice Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline EmRR

  • (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2020, 11:33:47 AM »
Is anyone still burning CD's?!?  That's the only reason I can think to stick with 44K1.  48 works with video and all media players. 

Following on what DSatz said, there IS a lot of suspect equipment out there, very EXPENSIVE suspect equipment you wouldn't suspect of being.....suspect.  I've heard lots of cases where cymbals and acoustic instrument treble was noticeably better at 48 over 44K1, observing the long pattern results from multiple recording sessions with the same equipment, different sample rates.  As to high rates, I used to have multiple converters that clearly sounded their best at 88K2 or higher, now there's much less observable difference.   

I worked at 44K1 for years when everything was going to CD, as it allowed me to mix directly to the same tape medium with the mix in sync with the multitrack.  That was the ONLY reason I ever stuck with 44K1.  I've worked at 88K2 or 96K for 14 years now.  In my few interactions with record labels, they all want 96K files. 
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, KMR 81i, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN, lots of other studio appropriate choices
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50, portable MOTU based multitrack DAW for client work

Offline morst

  • (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4298
  • Hey Now!
    • #twitterSUCKS
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2020, 12:21:22 PM »
44.1 is for compatibility with wasteful and outmoded plastic.
Video Sync is easiest at 48k.
If your target audience includes dogs and birds, or the intended use of your recordings is to pitch shift them downwards more than one octave, then I suggest using f(s) rates higher than 48k, else not.
I have finally settled at recording at 24/48 and distribution of finalized work at 16/48, as none of my recordings exceed 96dB s/n.
Merrick Garland *was* a compromise, and just look.

Offline Sebastian

  • (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1417
  • Gender: Male
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2020, 12:49:18 PM »
This was my contemplated path prior to starting the thread. Now reconsidering my practice of releasing 16/44.1 versions. DSatz pointed out my logical error; not likely that anyone's making optical discs any more, except of those vintage Duran Duran shows...

Hmmm, maybe 16/48 releases so they're easy to sync with video, which does happen once in a while.

I guess there is no right or wrong here. Everybody is entitled to do with their recordings whatever they want. I chose 44.1kHz because it's the sample rate that is compatible with the most playback hardware, including CDs. Even though I haven't burned a CDR in over a decade myself. And since I couldn't care less about video, I'm just sticking to the audio standard.

Following on what DSatz said, there IS a lot of suspect equipment out there, very EXPENSIVE suspect equipment you wouldn't suspect of being.....suspect.  I've heard lots of cases where cymbals and acoustic instrument treble was noticeably better at 48 over 44K1, observing the long pattern results from multiple recording sessions with the same equipment, different sample rates.  As to high rates, I used to have multiple converters that clearly sounded their best at 88K2 or higher, now there's much less observable difference.

I guess my initial point still stands: If it sounds fine on my playback equipment at 44.1kHz, I'll continue putting out (and recording) my tapes in that format. Why should I care about some suspect equipment I don't even own?

Caveat emptor: I have been to way too many loud shows to hear a difference between all those formats, so maybe that's why I couldn't care less about all those supposedly better sampling rates. ;) Your hearing may be better than mine. In this case: more power to you! :)
Schoeps { MK6 | MK41V | MK4 } > NBob actives > {Naiant Tinybox v2.0 | Naiant IPA | Naiant PFAs} > {Sound Devices MixPre-6 | Sony PCM-A10 | Sony PCM-M10 | Tascam DR-2d}

Recordings:
Live Music Archive | DaD Torrents | TTD Torrents | Etree Torrents

Offline goodcooker

  • (38)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
  • Gender: Male
  • goes to 11
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2020, 10:27:41 AM »

When I got my first "real" recording deck, a Marantz PMD670, it topped out at 16/48. Many people had already moved on to 24 bit and much higher sampling rates but memory cards and storage drives were still expensive. My next recorder was 24 bit and I stuck with 48kHz for a while than moved it down to 44.1. I'm still there.

I can't tell a difference and I have pretty good playback gear. Not entirely convinced any longer that processing sampling rate conversions would have more adverse affect than just going with the lower sampling rate to begin with.

If I'm recording audio and I know for sure that it is to be used in a video I'll switch to 48. If I was recording audio for a professional release I would go to 96 to give the post production folks downstream more resolution.
Joly Mod Oktava MK012 || NakCM300 || ADK A51 > Sound Devices 442 || Reference Audio Designs MS2 > Tascam DR701d || Zoom F6
Transfers - Tascam DA30 or Fostex D5 (dats) or Nak MR2 (cassettes) > Sound Devices USB Pre

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/goodcooker

"Are you the Zman?" - fan at Panic 10-08-10 Kansas City
"I don't know who left this perfectly good inflatable wook doll here, but if I'm blowing her up, I'm keeping her." -  hoppedup

Offline voltronic

  • (34)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3202
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2020, 12:50:27 PM »
My default has been 48 kHz for a long time.  The video sync is a big reason for that.  Even if you aren't doing a camera audio replacement, you may find yourself doing an edit of someone's phone video with some music you have previously recorded, or you want to lay down tracks with a friend who lives far away and they only have a phone or tablet to record on.  Those devices are going to be running at 48k by default, so for maximum compatibility with whatever my tracks might ever get combined with, that's the sample rate I choose.  Having 44.1 and 48 k sources in the same project can get hairy.

For projects that I'm doing 100% at home in my DAW that have a combination of live and MIDI-fed VSTs, I run at 96 kHz for the greater precision, but final delivery is 48 kHz.  Honestly, 96 kHz is the default for new projects in my DAW (Reaper) and I never cared to change it.

44.1 kHz or a multiple of it is what you should choose if you are going to deliver to CD because of the reduced risk of SRC errors.  (This is probably less of a problem as it once was.)  If you're not making CDs, I would go with 48 kHz.

I have never heard a sonic benefit to acoustic recordings with sample rates higher than 48 kHz, so I don't use them.  I even have tracks I have bought from high-res online music stores that were delivered at 96 or 192 kHz, and I downsampled them to 48 kHz to save hard drive space.  The funny thing is if you put a lot of those tracks into a spectrogram, you'll find that they may have been recorded at a much lower rate and then upsampled! (caveat emptor)

As far as bit depth, I would avoid 16-bit for tracking, unless you have no other choice.  There's no reason not to use 24-bit and its wider dynamic range.
DPA 4061 | Line Audio CM3 | Naiant X-Q | AT 853  //  Naiant PFAs | Shure FP24  //  Zoom F6 | Sony PCM-M10
MOTU M2 // KRK Rokit RP5 // Sennheiser HD 650

Team Line Audio

Offline jerryfreak

  • (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5487
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2020, 01:17:34 PM »
As far as bit depth, I would avoid 16-bit for tracking, unless you have no other choice.  There's no reason not to use 24-bit and its wider dynamic range.

you can make equally good recordings with 16 bit, but with good equipment, 24-bit is useful as you can achieve comparable results without riding the levels as much, which is risky
People whose posts I wont see:
 capnhook, daspyknows, Melanie, morst, Rob D., Scooter123, Sloan Simpson, Walstib62, Dr. Bickart

Offline EmRR

  • (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: 48 KHz vs 44.1 KHz sample rate
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2020, 06:51:56 PM »
Any of the MOTU converters before the 2014 updates, for example, sound obviously worse up top at 48 and under.  Conversely, the Aurora converters of then and earlier apparently did sound best at 48. 
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, KMR 81i, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN, lots of other studio appropriate choices
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50, portable MOTU based multitrack DAW for client work

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.098 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2020 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF