Sample rates...

esactun

New member
I'm currently running a 16-bit setup. The quality of my stuff does not yet merit jumping to 24 bit. :D I have previously recorded at 44.1 kHz. I am upgrading my stuff in a piecemeal fashion, and I haven't gotten to the PC yet.

My question is: Considering that I'm all 16-bit--effects and all--is it worth it to record at 48 kHz or higher? Has anyone here found the improvement in quality/frequency range to be large enough in a 16-bit environment to justify the increased file size? My CPU takes enough time to process audio as it is :( .

I know, I should just try it.... but right now I'm at work!
 
Don't bother...The improvement in audio quality is a lot greater going from 16 to 24 bit than going from 44.1 to 48kHz, so try recording at 24 bit first before you consider whether or not you should go for 48kHz...
 
Will it matter that CD players play at 44.1 and eventually you will have to, is dither the term? convert back to 44.1? Will the recording quality of 44.8 be lost when converting? Is there another way around this?
 
Dither is the term, and I don't think there is any way to avoid the loss in quality.

I heard that SB live's internal clock runs at 48kHz... dB51 says that it's not worth the bother to record at that over 44.1, but I wonder if it would be worth the bother for SBLive users...?
 
> Is there another way around this?

Sorry, No. :(

>Will the recording quality of 44.8 (sic) be lost when converting?

I don't think so. As long as the dither was done right. Maybe that's the reason they put those 88.2KHz sample rates on A/D converters. The dither is highly simplified.

>if it would be worth the bother for SBLive users...?

I don't have one of those and I don't wanna sound condescending toward that card- I've used worse.
But you have to check out for yourself if any additional
detail picked up by the slightly higher sample rate isn't
mostly composed of noise from the card itself.
Run a comparison and see if it sounds better, worse or the same.
 
Back
Top