Sampling frequency

[Altaire]

to anybody who can answer this:

I heard that if you work on a project at a higher frequency like 96 or 48k, then when you convert it to 44.1k for a CD you lose part of the frequency and your sound degrades...is this true? So should you just work at 44.1 from the beginning?

 

[Mo-Kay]

oh shit...here we go again...

 

[Farview]

A 96k file can have a frequency response up to 48khz. If you take that file and convert it to 44.1, you will loose everything above 22.05khz.

If you record at 44.1, you will never record anything above 22.05.

It's been hotly debated whether anything is gained by recording at 96 when the target rate for the project is 44.1. I always use the sample rate that the final product will be.

 

[Altaire]

why, was this talked about already???

 

[Farview]

This is talked about constantly, do a search.

 

[dachay2tnr]

Hotly debated topic, since the average human can't hear past 20 kHz.

 

[jamaaljay]

Recording at the higher frequencies allows you to manipulate and edit the wave file more acurately, that is my understanding anyway and it makes sense.

 

[apl]

Here's a useful article, parts one and two.

Bottom line: record at the same sampling rate as your final product.

 

[bennychico11]

Bottom line: record at the same sampling rate as your final product.

and never use analog if it's going to CD!

 

[apl]

and never use analog if it's going to CD!

I've had pretty good luck with my analog guitars.

 

[Havoc]

since the average human can't hear past 20 kHz.

When he/she is about 3 months old, after that it won't even go up that far.

 

[bennychico11]

When he/she is about 3 months old, after that it won't even go up that far.

neither do most speakers or microphones