44.1 or 48khz
- Thread starter Mealz
- Start date
crosstudio
New member
i disagree.
48khz gives you 3900 more samples per second than 44.1khz that means that 48khz provides you with a representation of the real sound that is 10% more accurate than 44.1khz
now factor in that you'll have multiple raw tracks, each of which will have a 10% greater representation of the original sound using 48khz rather than 44.1khz. you will be doing further processing on said tracks (eq, compression, limiting, reverb, delay, etc...) before finally mixing all of this down to a 2 track stereo mix. wouldn't you rather perform that processing using a more accurate representation of the real sound?
now you take the 2 track stereo mix, and convert it from 48khz to 44.1khz to make the CD.
48khz gives you 3900 more samples per second than 44.1khz that means that 48khz provides you with a representation of the real sound that is 10% more accurate than 44.1khz
now factor in that you'll have multiple raw tracks, each of which will have a 10% greater representation of the original sound using 48khz rather than 44.1khz. you will be doing further processing on said tracks (eq, compression, limiting, reverb, delay, etc...) before finally mixing all of this down to a 2 track stereo mix. wouldn't you rather perform that processing using a more accurate representation of the real sound?
now you take the 2 track stereo mix, and convert it from 48khz to 44.1khz to make the CD.
JuSumPilgrim
New member
When you factor in the lack of quality sample rate conversion 48khz makes no sense. You lose more than you gain with boxy sounding audio and stereo image loss.