The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
44,1 vs 48 khz
Old 3 weeks ago
  #1
Here for the gear
44,1 vs 48 khz

I'm confused. I've read a lot on that topic, and i'm even more confuse.
I hope someone here can help me

If the final master i must provide is 44,1 @24bit does have any sense to make the production, the mixing and the mastering at 48khz then convert to 44,1?
I mean quality wise what do you suggest? To work 48khz than convert it or stick at 44,1?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Verified Member
44.1kHz is a stupid sample rate whose demise cannot come soon enough. Of course 48kHz is a much better option especially when it comes to anti-aliasing filter. 96kHz is much much better. But choosing between 44.1 and 48, it's not even a question which one is better. 48kHz all the way. My 2 cents anyway.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
SmoothTone's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 5 years
The main argument is that processing at higher sample rates can reduce aliasing. Some converters may also perform better at higher rates.

While this was certainly true in the past, the development and improvement of oversampling in digital processors and also in converter design makes the benefits less clear these days. It will depend on your particular processors and converters and only a test of your system will reveal whether higher rates yield better results for you.


So in simple terms:

1) Do your particular processors sound better at 44.1 or 48kHz?

2) Do you have a good enough SRC to make using a higher rate worthwhile?


Processing aside, I think 44.1kHz is perfectly acceptible as a delivery format.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Try it. I'll be you can't hear a difference in a blind test. Well, unless your converters perform drastically differently at different rates - which is just a sign of broken equipment, not sampling rate superiority.

With modern converters (ADC, DAC and SRC), sampling rate it just about the least important aspect of recording. Somewhere between dither and speaker cables.

Hope I don't break the internet...
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
Hope I don't break the internet...
You break it, you fix it.

Once, when I broke the speed limit, fixing it was very expensive.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Trakworx's Avatar
 
Verified Member
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I record and mix at 48k, then convert to whatever delivery formats at the very end of mastering. Keeping the anti-aliasing filter further above the audible band while tracking, mixing, processing gets a slightly smoother, more natural sound. At least it did the last time I checked.

I came to this workflow years ago after some experimentation. It's possible that things may have changed since then but I kind of doubt it because that filter is still there...
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
scraggs's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
Hope I don't break the internet...
If you didn't this will: I think a built in low pass filter at 22.05k is a feature, not a bug.

*runs, hides*

Seriously. No one has ever wanted any 10hz on their records, why's it different at the other end of the spectrum? What's up there above 20k anyone thinks they need more of?

15 years ago I made a bunch of records at 88.2. After that I made a bunch at 44.1. They all sounded the same. 88.2 didn't make me any better. Since then I've done everything at 44.1 and not given it a second thought. Literally everything else in the recording/mixing process is way more important than the sample rate.

Lots of times I go to SRC a hi-res master in RX and I chuckle when I see there's no freqs over 20k.

Likewise (conversely?) I chuckle when I put on a hi-res remaster and see some nice line noise/whine at 30k. Gotta preserve all that stuff as faithfully as possible! Low level details!
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️

With modern converters (ADC, DAC and SRC), sampling rate it just about the least important aspect of recording. Somewhere between dither and speaker cables.
I'd agree except for one thing - latency. The higher the sample rate the lower the latency - assuming the gear can handle it.

But sound wise - true - I'm deep into "meh" territory. 24/48 all the way for me (particularly as all my outboard hangs off ADAT.)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 
surflounge's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
broadcast = 48
CD = 44.1
Old 3 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
all my interfaces can do up to 96k 24bit. even my old m-audio firewire. they just have different quality DAC and pre-amps. which is a separate issue from project sample rate and bit depth. i just make music. CDs are 44.1/16 bit but i work in 48k/24. the way it was explained to me is that you need to work in 2x what your final export will be. so i work in 48/24 and export in 44/16. i may be approaching this wrong -- but it works for me and the project file sizes are manageable.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #11
Here for the gear
Thank you very much for the replies.
There is anything different to consider if i work 100% in the box?
My doubt is if the downsampling is always preferable instead to have a lower nyquist level
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs ➡️
Seriously. No one has ever wanted any 10hz on their records, why's it different at the other end of the spectrum? What's up there above 20k anyone thinks they need more of?
It's not necessarily about preserving frequencies above 20kHz, but rather having a more gentle anti-aliasing filter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs ➡️
Lots of times I go to SRC a hi-res master in RX and I chuckle when I see there's no freqs over 20k.

Likewise (conversely?) I chuckle when I put on a hi-res remaster and see some nice line noise/whine at 30k. Gotta preserve all that stuff as faithfully as possible! Low level details!
Well, this just proves that some people don't know what they're doing, not that the method itself is of no use.
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothTone ➡️
only a test of your system will reveal whether higher rates yield better results for you.
How is such a test performed?
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
scraggs's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfghdhr ➡️
It's not necessarily about preserving frequencies above 20kHz, but rather having a more gentle anti-aliasing filter.
I know. I just don't think it really matters.

You look at a drum kit recorded at 88.2 and you can clearly see there's tons of >20k info. It seems horrifying to just cut all that off! And with a super steep filter at that.

But then you listen to the same kit recorded at 44.1 and well, it sounds just fine. It doesn't sound any different than it did at 88.2.

*shrugs*

It's just my opinion. But everything else is a million times more important.
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs ➡️
I know. I just don't think it really matters.

You look at a drum kit recorded at 88.2 and you can clearly see there's tons of >20k info. It seems horrifying to just cut all that off! And with a super steep filter at that.

But then you listen to the same kit recorded at 44.1 and well, it sounds just fine. It doesn't sound any different than it did at 88.2.

*shrugs*

It's just my opinion. But everything else is a million times more important.
Well if it sounds fine to you, then I'm sure it's fine. I'm not saying 44.1kHz sounds horrible at all. I just think it's not quite broad enough for the anti-aliasing part of the equation. I had a chat with Paul Frindle a while back and he said his preference would've been a 64kHz sample rate with a gentle filter from 20kHz to 32kHz. Also Dan Lavry mentions something similar in his paper, if I can remember correctly his preference is 60kHz. And since those two sample rates are not standard, hence 96kHz is the happy medium (at least to me).
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
SmoothTone's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrouspizza ➡️
How is such a test performed?
Work at the different rates and see if you can hear a difference in the end result.

You can also check individual plugins for aliasing in Plugin Doctor.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #17
Gear Head
 
There's a very good video by Dan Worrall on sample rates here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCwIsT0X8M
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs ➡️
It's just my opinion. But everything else is a million times more important.
Mine too.
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfghdhr ➡️
Well if it sounds fine to you, then I'm sure it's fine. I'm not saying 44.1kHz sounds horrible at all. I just think it's not quite broad enough for the anti-aliasing part of the equation. I had a chat with Paul Frindle a while back and he said his preference would've been a 64kHz sample rate with a gentle filter from 20kHz to 32kHz. Also Dan Lavry mentions something similar in his paper, if I can remember correctly his preference is 60kHz. And since those two sample rates are not standard, hence 96kHz is the happy medium (at least to me).
Yep, here’s that Lavry paper

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs...lity_audio.pdf

I handle my hardware loop in 88.2 kHz/24bit, because it makes converting to 44.1 easier. It may be snake oil, but it’s my snake oil
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmwolf ➡️
It may be snake oil, but it’s my snake oil
~Favorite Quote of the Year~

(for me, so far)

I use a dual DAW setup, so i pitch at the mix native sampling rate,

and usually captcha at 24-44.1, after my analog EQ path.

if the client asks for HD Masters,

I’ll captcha at 24/96, and do the SRC & dither to 16/44.1.

However, if it’s a single, I often capture the Master Twice, once at 24/96 and an additional pass at 24/44.1 to avoid any SRC algorithms.

Bit depth reduction & dither to 16-bit sounds better to my ear that way.

and i quote: (((It May Be Snake Oil, But It’s My Snake Oil!)))

All that said, I always liked the sound of 48kHz better,

the math and graphics are much Tidier that way

(real or imagined)

But given the 40-ish year history of digital audio, and common practice,

I default to 44.1k to avoid downstream problems & questions.

cheers, jt
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
SmoothTone's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by scraggs ➡️
But everything else is a million times more important.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
Hope I don't break the internet...
I dunno Greg, it might be good for us.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #22
Here for the gear
I made some try on the song i'm mastering, i've tryed with 44k 48k and 88k
I don't know why but 48k sound different, i mean, the higher frequencies sound like if it was a very smooth and gentle filter, but the results is these frequencies are less present. This isn't better or worse, i mean the song sound less harsh, but at the same time less "open".
Then i tryed the 88k and sound like the 44k i mean i can listen a very very little differences that i can't even say if is psicological or real.

i can't say ofc 44k is equal to 88k, because it can just be my ears, or the song genre (edm) that doesn't really need the more hi-fi feelings 88k could maybe bring on some orchestral track

the 48k it's weird, i don't know if it's my daw, my dac or what else.

Any tought on this?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Could be an example of a converter that works better at one frequency than another.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #24
Gear Maniac
 
I would think that whatever you do, if the person paying you is happy with the result, you’ve done everything right.
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfghdhr ➡️
It's not necessarily about preserving frequencies above 20kHz, but rather having a more gentle anti-aliasing filter.
That was a very important thing in the days of ladder converters. But we live in the sigma-delta world today where anti-aliasing filters (the analogue half anyway) are phenomenally gentle, often just a single pole. It
so much better than it was in the eighties.
--scott
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson ➡️
Could be an example of a converter that works better at one frequency than another.
The classic example was the Panasonic SV3700 DAT machine which for a while was something of a studio standard. They didn't even change the filter time constants when you went from 44.1 to 48... so needless to say it sounded a whole lot better at 48... but still not as good as something with competently-designed converters.

There was a lot of equipment out there like that in the eighties and thankfully most of it is gone, but I still encounter new gear that sounds quite different at different sample rates even when there is no digital processing going on. This is 2021 and that is shameful.
--scott
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #27
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️
The classic example was the Panasonic SV3700 DAT machine which for a while was something of a studio standard. They didn't even change the filter time constants when you went from 44.1 to 48... so needless to say it sounded a whole lot better at 48... but still not as good as something with competently-designed converters.

There was a lot of equipment out there like that in the eighties and thankfully most of it is gone, but I still encounter new gear that sounds quite different at different sample rates even when there is no digital processing going on. This is 2021 and that is shameful.
--scott
What DACs or interfaces sound the same at 44/48 and 96?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
This may have some relevance to the topic:



Old 3 weeks ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
Verified Member
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Waldrep Nope
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #30
DAH
Lives for gear
 
DAH's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Waldrep Nope
Thanks, Plush, but please be more detailed in your negation, if it is possible.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 6 views: 2132
Avatar for pony
pony 23rd July 2004
replies: 76 views: 15354
Avatar for A4722
A4722 30th July 2009
replies: 604 views: 14002
Avatar for ponzi
ponzi 1 minute ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump