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  •  Learn & Support


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: 246
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: 34,805
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).
__________________
Gigabyte X79/intel i7 3930K, 32GB RAM, DIGI003 Rack
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works


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: 5,033
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 10.12.6.

Pro Tools HD 2018.12, Focusrite Red 8Pre, Mbox 3 (Mac)
Pro Tools 11.3.2, Mbox2 (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: 34,805
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
__________________
Gigabyte X79/intel i7 3930K, 32GB RAM, DIGI003 Rack
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works


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

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-13-2010, 01:30 PM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
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.
Just want to go back and point out this is urban legend. It is simply not true. they are both equally as easy and error free.

What effects the sound of the conversion is not the actual conversion to the new sample rate, it is the reconstruction filter at the Nyquist frequency. But this holds true for any sampling, not just sample rate conversion. The crappier the filter is, the worse it will sound.
__________________
Derek Jones
Sound Engineer / Producer / Composer

Derek Jones Linkedin
Megatrax Recording Studios
Megatrax Studios Yelp Page
A-list Music Artist Page
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-13-2010, 03:51 PM
Park Seward's Avatar
Park Seward Park Seward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 4,284
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by O.G. Killa View Post
Just want to go back and point out this is urban legend. It is simply not true. they are both equally as easy and error free.

What effects the sound of the conversion is not the actual conversion to the new sample rate, it is the reconstruction filter at the Nyquist frequency. But this holds true for any sampling, not just sample rate conversion. The crappier the filter is, the worse it will sound.
"The's also why resampling at integer multiples or divisors would be less likely to distort, the math is simpler and less prone to round-off error. If we're downsampling from 96 to 48 all we need do is throw away every other sample. If we're upsampling, each new sample lies exactly halfway between the old and all we have to do is set its value to the average of the two old samples on either side of it. But if that new sample has to be inserted at .345654 of the time between two old samples and the next one is at .897667 of the time difference, and only a few of the new samples fall exactly on the same time mark as the old ones, now we got the problem in interpolation."

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...important.html

Sampling rate conversion is simplified if rates are integer multiples of each other.

Here are some interesting charts comparing SRC with different manufacturers:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/
__________________
Park
The Transfer Lab at Video Park
Analog tape to Pro Tools transfers, 1/4"-2"
http://www.videopark.com
MacPro 6 core 3.33 GHz, OS 10.12.1, 8 GB RAM, PT12.6.1, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, PreSonus DigiMax, MC Control V3.5, dual displays,
Neumann U-47, Tab V76 mic pre, RCA 44BX and 77DX, MacBook Pro 9,1, 2.3 Mhz, i7, CBS Labs Audimax and Volumax.
Ampex 440B half-track and four-track, 351 tube full-track mono, MM-1100 16-track.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-13-2010, 05:31 PM
spicemix spicemix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 771
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Seward View Post
"The's also why resampling at integer multiples or divisors would be less likely to distort, the math is simpler and less prone to round-off error. If we're downsampling from 96 to 48 all we need do is throw away every other sample. If we're upsampling, each new sample lies exactly halfway between the old and all we have to do is set its value to the average of the two old samples on either side of it. But if that new sample has to be inserted at .345654 of the time between two old samples and the next one is at .897667 of the time difference, and only a few of the new samples fall exactly on the same time mark as the old ones, now we got the problem in interpolation."

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...important.html

Sampling rate conversion is simplified if rates are integer multiples of each other.

Here are some interesting charts comparing SRC with different manufacturers:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/
You are quoting some guy who for all I know is a home theatre consumer and has no professional audio expertise whatsoever.

Go ahead and try your sample dropping approach and let us know how it sounds.

Today those factors are irrelevant in the better algos.
__________________
Peter Jensen
spicemix
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2010, 10:26 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Seward View Post
"The's also why resampling at integer multiples or divisors would be less likely to distort, the math is simpler and less prone to round-off error. If we're downsampling from 96 to 48 all we need do is throw away every other sample. If we're upsampling, each new sample lies exactly halfway between the old and all we have to do is set its value to the average of the two old samples on either side of it. But if that new sample has to be inserted at .345654 of the time between two old samples and the next one is at .897667 of the time difference, and only a few of the new samples fall exactly on the same time mark as the old ones, now we got the problem in interpolation."

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...important.html

Sampling rate conversion is simplified if rates are integer multiples of each other.

Here are some interesting charts comparing SRC with different manufacturers:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/
All of the effects seen in the Infinitewave graphs are due to the filters used. they explain that in the FAQ and Help.

ABSOLUTELY NO PROGRAM EVER DIVIDES BY 2 TO DOWNSAMPLE. NONE. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. IT IS A MYTH. This is exactly the reason why I posted about this. There are so many people that still don't understand how this actually works or have been told incorrectly and then adhere to the wrong information as though it is fact.

Do this little math problem for me please.

44100 x 160 = ?
48000 x 147 = ?

What are the answers to the equations above? Noticing anything similar about the answers? What do you think that means in terms of sample rate conversion?
__________________
Derek Jones
Sound Engineer / Producer / Composer

Derek Jones Linkedin
Megatrax Recording Studios
Megatrax Studios Yelp Page
A-list Music Artist Page
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2010, 10:33 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

and by the way, that DVinfo forum link is sooooo far off the mark it's scary. They guy is telling people to add DITHER when sample rate converting!?!?!?! Wow... that is scary. These guys in that link are all novice/hobbyist people. Don't put too much stock into what they are saying, because after reading through the thread pretty much all of the info they mentioned was wrong (except for the fact that DVDs use 48KHz and CDs use 44.1KHz).
__________________
Derek Jones
Sound Engineer / Producer / Composer

Derek Jones Linkedin
Megatrax Recording Studios
Megatrax Studios Yelp Page
A-list Music Artist Page
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2010, 10:53 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by O.G. Killa View Post
All of the effects seen in the Infinitewave graphs are due to the filters used. they explain that in the FAQ and Help.

ABSOLUTELY NO PROGRAM EVER DIVIDES BY 2 TO DOWNSAMPLE. NONE. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. IT IS A MYTH. This is exactly the reason why I posted about this. There are so many people that still don't understand how this actually works or have been told incorrectly and then adhere to the wrong information as though it is fact.

Do this little math problem for me please.

44100 x 160 = ?
48000 x 147 = ?

What are the answers to the equations above? Noticing anything similar about the answers? What do you think that means in terms of sample rate conversion?
Here's a fun little website that might ultimately shed some light for some people on sample rate conversion "math".

http://www.mathsisfun.com/least-comm...iple-tool.html

To expand on my equations I did in the other post...let's try these.

44100 x 320 = ?
48000 x 294 = ?
88200 x 160 = ?
96000 x 147 = ?

And then do these...

44100 x 640 = ?
48000 x 588 = ?
88200 x 320 = ?
96000 x 294 = ?
176400 x 160 = ?
192000 x 147 = ?

Do you see any patterns here? And by the way, this last group of numbers is what PTHD uses. Most other DAWs (and I think LE) use the the second to last group of numbers.

Enjoy

BUT!!! none of this will actually effect the audio quality of the signal. It is the Filter used at the nyquist of the destination sampling rate that effects the fidelity. The better that filter is, the better the conversion will sound. It has nothing to do with the "math" involved in converting the numbers from one rate to the other. There will never be any "decimal points" or "rounding" or "rounding errors" or "rounding distortion" when converting sampling rates. It is an integer to integer equation and for a computer is EXTREMELY simple. And it is easier to write the code for the ONE equation to handle all the sampling rates, than to have a separate equation for each sample rate combination. With that last group of numbers, you can easily go from ANY of the chosen sampling rates to ANY OTHER chosen sampling rate with one basic equation.
__________________
Derek Jones
Sound Engineer / Producer / Composer

Derek Jones Linkedin
Megatrax Recording Studios
Megatrax Studios Yelp Page
A-list Music Artist Page
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 01:54 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 09:38 AM
Higher Gain Tommyboy 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 1 03-22-2000 06:48 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 PM.


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