Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Additional Resources


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > Tips & Tricks

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2010, 06:41 PM
Mr. Kelly Mr. Kelly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Newton, MA 02458
Posts: 234
Default 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Hey all,

I've been noticing on here that there are a bunch of people that say that their "standard" sessions are 24 bit 44.1 kHz. I've always used 24 bit 48 kHz sessions, then truncated down to 16 bit 44.1 kHz for mastering.

Anyone have reasons, other than file sizes, to NOT use a 48 kHz sample rate? Does the truncation yield a point of diminishing return, i.e., not produce enough of an improvement to offset the detriments of the truncation?

What session rates do you use?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-29-2010, 06:54 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 32,972
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

In theory, sample rate conversion may cause errors in the audio files. THis is the same logic that records at 88.2(instead of 96K) for a final product CD. The math to convert form 88.2K to 44.1K is simple, vs the math to convert from 96K to 44.1K. My philosophy is simple. If the end goal is audio(CD or uploads) I go 44.1K. If the end goal will be tied to video, I go 48k. In either case, I always record at 24 bit and dither the final 2mix during mastering (even if its nothing more than dither and Waves L2 for a rough CD. I bounce to disk at the original sample rate and bit depth. Any conversion or bit reduction gets done in a separate step in WaveLab(including mp3). Now, having said all this, if your ears tell you that 48K sounds better, then go with it(I have yet to have a client mention it).
__________________
Asus x99, Intel i7 6800K, 32 gig DDR4, GeForce 750 Ti, HD/Native, HD IOx2, PT11HD, UAD Quad, preamps from Vintech, Five Fish Audio, Miktek, Focusrite, Chameleon Labs and Midas..............................
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works
www.capricornsoundworks.com

The better I drink...the more I mix.....

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-29-2010, 08:58 PM
Top Jimmy's Avatar
Top Jimmy Top Jimmy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,612
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by albee1952 View Post
The math to convert form 88.2K to 44.1K is simple, vs the math to convert from 96K to 44.1K.
So you had to go and whip out that chestnut huh albee? While it seems logical, it really doesn't matter.

But you are right. It's the SRC that has always been frowned upon. Avoiding it is looked upon as a step towards quality.

Historically, many SRC algorithms have been quite atrocious. While many have improved over time, you can see a visual of where some are currently here. http://src.infinitewave.ca/

And of course, Audioease's world-famous audio demonstrations. http://www.audioease.com/Pages/Barba...a4SRCTest.html
__________________
James Cadwallader

Hackintosh - Gigabyte Z77X-UP5TH, Intel Core i7-3770K, 32GB 1600Mhz DDR3, 2x SATA 6Gb/s 240GB SSD, 3x SATA 6Gb/s 1TB HDD, 1x Glyph 2TB USB3 HDD, Sierra 10.12.2.

Pro Tools HD 12.8.1, Mbox3, MOTU PCI-424 w/ 2408mkII & 1224 (Mac)
Pro Tools 11.3.2, Mbox2, Focusrite Scarlett 18I8 (Win 7)

Presonus Faderport, Pro Tools | Control
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-29-2010, 09:23 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 32,972
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

I only stated my opinion No one needs to agree, and other views are always welcome(since I would not claim to be the end-all on this one). Besides......he started it
__________________
Asus x99, Intel i7 6800K, 32 gig DDR4, GeForce 750 Ti, HD/Native, HD IOx2, PT11HD, UAD Quad, preamps from Vintech, Five Fish Audio, Miktek, Focusrite, Chameleon Labs and Midas..............................
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works
www.capricornsoundworks.com

The better I drink...the more I mix.....

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-30-2010, 07:47 AM
waltz mastering's Avatar
waltz mastering waltz mastering is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Posts: 144
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kelly View Post
I've always used 24 bit 48 kHz sessions, then truncated down to 16 bit 44.1 kHz for mastering.

Anyone have reasons, other than file sizes, to NOT use a 48 kHz sample rate? Does the truncation yield a point of diminishing return?
Truncating causes distortion.
__________________

Tom W

www.waltzmastering.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-30-2010, 01:19 PM
jazzdrumr jazzdrumr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 60
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Ask your mastering house what they prefer. The folks I use don't care what the file is, they play it out analog to their mastering system. Yes, it's a D/A and A/D conversion but they swear by it. Most of what gets distributed these days is MP3. CD's are so 1987! Why let 25 year old technology decide this? My 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-30-2010, 02:38 PM
daeron80 daeron80 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA
Posts: 3,498
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

For the most part, it's pretty hard to hear the difference between 44.1 and 48. They're just really close in frequency - about the same as one musical step.

Where it can show up a little more is when you do something that aliases, even only a tiny bit, and then apply distortion of some kind. E.g., poorly programmed soft synths that use some kind of generative function, like an FM synth built with SynthEdit. Or some guitar amp sims.

As you know, aliasing happens when a digital audio system is asked to represent a frequency greater than half the sample rate. Mostly, that's handled with brickwall filters at I/O. But they can sometimes be generated internally through a digital process. When that happens, it produces a new tone at Nyquist minus the difference. 48 has a Nyquist of 24, so if a frequency of 40 is required, a tone is produced at 8 (24-(40-24)). It's like a mirror reflecting those high frequencies back down. The big problem is, they're practically guaranteed to be inharmonic (read "ugly as heck"). Thankfully, they're usually too quiet to hear - UNLESS you apply harmonic distortion. Then suddenly it's harshness city. That's why it shows up with amp sims. They're all about harmonic distortion.

So, even though 44.1 and 48 aren't that far apart, using the higher rate does make it less likely that aliasing will occur, thus reducing the fizzy buzzies that plague many amp plugins.

Another reason to use 48, as albee said, is if it's sound for video or film. If it's going to be output at 48, it might as well start there.

Other than those considerations, I can't say I've noticed any difference.
__________________
David J. Finnamore

Can we debunk the "less bits" myth now?

PT 12.8.1 HD | Omni | macOS Sierra
PT 12.8.2 | Saffire Pro 40 | Win7x64
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-30-2010, 03:54 PM
waltz mastering's Avatar
waltz mastering waltz mastering is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Posts: 144
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kelly View Post
Does the truncation yield a point of diminishing return, i.e., not produce enough of an improvement to offset the detriments of the truncation?
I assume you sample rate convert, but instead of truncating why don't you dither when reducing word length?

Izotope has a very good src algorithm as well as dither program.
__________________

Tom W

www.waltzmastering.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-30-2010, 04:07 PM
necjamc necjamc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: RI
Posts: 2,667
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

I am learning something from this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-30-2010, 04:14 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 2,908
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

I'v not been able to hear any difference between 44, 48, 88 or 96 KHz, but I'm only on an mbox 2 pro.
Maby better AD/DA converters would make it more audible ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
going higher than 10.6.3 viaspiaggia Post - Surround - Video 2 06-23-2011 04:41 AM
Can I get mp3.dll from 6.7 or higher? jonah day 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 0 03-13-2006 02:54 PM
Anyone running higher than OS 10.3.4 with 001? duderonomi 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 2 04-15-2005 07:59 PM
Anyone use JAM v.2.6 with OS 9.1 or higher?? peter parker 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 11-21-2002 10:38 AM
Higher Gain Tommyboy 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 1 03-22-2000 07:48 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com