44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer
I have read a lot of articles & discussions about this subject over the years, many of them, I confess, far beyond my comprehension.
So please let me make it simple: which one are you really using for recording and mixing: 44.1 or 48? Can you provide a brief explanation why? Why am making this question? Because there's a lot of advice around saying something like: Use 44.1 for CD and 48 for video. Ok, I'm starting a new project and... 1. Will it be released on CD some day? Probably not, but who knows. 2. Will it be released as a music video on YouTube? I really hope so. 3. Will it be on Spotify and the likes? Definitely, that's what I'm aiming for. 4. Are you gonna mix it yourself? Yes. 5. Are you gonna master it yourself? No, I'll leave that to a pro. So, which should I use: 44.1 or 48? Thanks in advance for any clarification. |
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
Picture always uses 48k (or a multiplier -- ). There are multiple reasons for that which trace back to the development of optical audio and frame rates that dictated that. Probably above what you want to know. If you want to know, look up the history of audio on film (and then television.)
If you aren't doing CDs (and even if you are), 48k is a safe bet. Apple MFiT will accept 48k. Today's decoders in most digital systems aren't limited to CD standards of 44.1k. If you need to go to CD 44.1k, you can sample-rate convert down. You can sample rate convert up to 48k but it is obvious due to not being able to re-create what was never there (there's a band of frequencies that will remain "blank") Officially, the original CD engineers wanted 50k-60kHz (due to filters, not the Nyqvist theory) but that was over ruled at Sony-Phillips due to the medium at that time. So use 48k. If you are using plugins, they are oversampling above that anyway (almost all the good ones). Even better, stick to 32 bit floating point until the end. |
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
Quote:
Ummm... Laserdisc originally used FM analog. When digital audio was added, it was at the same rate as CD. Even later Dolby and DTS surround capability was added but I don't remember the digital audio capability ever getting to 96K. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
Quote:
|
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
Quote:
|
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
Quote:
HD DVD did 96k (first time I had to deal with a master for a movie at that rate) |
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
A million thanks, guys, that was really helpful. You are the best.
|
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer
Personally I’d go 48 even if the final result is on CD. I try to avoid 44.1, it sounds trashy to my years.
|
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer
Quote:
That's what I'm hearing aswell. A bit smudged. I've used 96K for many years. It sounds cleaner and better to my ears. I have no explenation for it. Also it gives me better results when pitch shifting. |
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer
Actually, there is a good explanation. Dynamics processing and saturation distort a lot less without adding a great deal of latency. Simple record/playback shouldn't make much difference but when you add signal processing to the equation, it's a whole different matter.
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com