Is there really any reason for 48 khz besides video?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ruebarb
  • Start date Start date
ruebarb

ruebarb

New member
I was going to use speed for recording on my Mackie HDR, because fo that mentality that "faster is better" - but then I started thinking...Technically, it's not much faster, and it's really a video standard, not an audio CD standard. -

My thinking is I'll lose quality dropping from 48 khz to 44.1 during mixdown since my only convertors are in the Masterlink...so I'm leaving my standard at 44.1/24 bit recording.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this? I definately see where 24 bit is important, but not necessary a slightly higher frequency of recording speed.

Now if I could get to 96 khz, that's something. Perhaps there there's a quality difference, but I'm not sure that 44.1/48 really matters all that much, and you'd be better off recording at whatever speed your audio standard is (44.1 for CD - 48 for Broadcast/TV) -

Opinions?
 
Ruebarb, I have no idea what you're asking.... if you record at 48Khz, you can easily transfer that digitally to the Masterlink....

Sampling rate makes much less of a noticeable difference than wordsize does... ie - the difference between recording using 16-bit or 24-bit is more noticeable than the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz sampling rates....

The Masterlink does an excellent job of converting down to 44.1Khz with no ill effects....

Could you repeat the question? ;)

Bruce
 
doh...

let me clairfy. I'm debating whether or not to record my stuff at 48khz or at 44.1 sampling rates.

I have no doubt that 24 bits are better then 16 - but I really didn't think there would be a quality difference...between the 48 and 44.1...in fact, I thought that 48khz was available because that's the standard for broadcast video..and you would be expected to use 44.1 for audio.

But I'm not sure....that's why I'm asking.
 
Well... I think you're the only one that can answer that! Simply try both and compare the 2 - one dithered down from 48, the other mix'd down directly to 44.1....

If you can't tell the difference, then save a conversion and stick with 44.1!!

:)

Bruce
 
i can!

i can hear the difference between 44.1 and 48 clearly. But you're right, once you resample to 44.1 the difference is MUCH harder to tell, but 2 things

1) your original tracks will always be 48 when you (or your client) has the medium to mix to 48 instead, like DVD audio, then they can remix it.

2)if you are recording digital and mixing through an analog board then defintely use 48 for better sound quality, then you can record on the masterlink at 44.1.
 
Just to clarify...

Of course, I meant Ruebarb should try telling if HE can hear a difference using HIS signal chain...

Bruce
 
Okay, I believe you. But *I* can't hear the difference between 48 and 44.1, nor can many, many others. Which means that it's not a hugely important difference.

Bet your ass though, that when I get a soundcard that does 96 KHz I'll be there.
 
if you have a good sample rate converter at your disposal (masterlink) its obvious that you should utilize 48khz....while you may not hear it, there is a difference......
 
There is a difference between 44.1 and 48 - without any question.
Its not a huge difference .......... if you listen to one track.
2 tracks and the difference is a bit bigger, 3 even more, 4, 5, 6 - now you have a substantial difference.

Its like a logarythm - the more tracks the bigger the difference.

The problems with anyone saying "I cannot hear a difference" -
1. Their chain does not allow them to hear a difference.
2. They never really tried to a/b anything but individual tracks, you need to stack to hear it properly.
3. Who listens through a good D/A converter? The more accurate the converter, the bigger the difference you can hear.

conclusion : Use as high a clockspeed as possible, use as high a sample rate as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top