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
  #11  
Old 06-30-2010, 04:27 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 swear I can hear a difference in signal quality at 96K. But that could definitely
be my imagination knowing that it's a higher (better) sample rate.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-01-2010, 05:42 AM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 2,899
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

What are you using, Mbox2Pro, 003 ?
Do you external AD/DA ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-09-2010, 08:06 PM
Park Seward's Avatar
Park Seward Park Seward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 4,286
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Use 44.1 for CD and 48 for video. You will get no advantage doing it another way and you will create distortion with SRC the 48 to 44.1
__________________
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
  #14  
Old 07-11-2010, 09:02 AM
Park Seward's Avatar
Park Seward Park Seward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 4,286
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by necjamc View Post
I swear I can hear a difference in signal quality at 96K. But that could definitely
be my imagination knowing that it's a higher (better) sample rate.
There was a thread here on the DUC that talked about an experiment where two buttons were labeled "44.1" and "96". Subjects listened to the sounds by pressing the appropriate buttons and reporting their opinions. They all said the "96" button sounded better than the "44.1" button.

Except the buttons were reversed. The 96 was really the 44.1.
__________________
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
  #15  
Old 07-11-2010, 10:48 AM
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?

Like I said, it's probably a perception of higher means better, forcing you to listen for that "better" sound. In a blind test where the subject doesn't know they are comparing it they would probably not hear it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-11-2010, 01:06 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 32,880
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Most everyone will hear the improvement of 96K, especially if they compare with 44.1K in an A-B comparison while recording. But once the audio ends up going thru mixing, mastering and reduction DOWN to 48K for a DVD, 44.1K for a CD(or to mp3....UGH) the improvement has been lost(anywhere from a little to a lot).
__________________
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
  #17  
Old 07-11-2010, 02:18 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by albee1952 View Post
Most everyone will hear the improvement of 96K, especially if they compare with 44.1K in an A-B comparison while recording. But once the audio ends up going thru mixing, mastering and reduction DOWN to 48K for a DVD, 44.1K for a CD(or to mp3....UGH) the improvement has been lost(anywhere from a little to a lot).
Well I stand by I swear I can tell, but couldn't give proof
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-11-2010, 02:27 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 2,899
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisdee View Post
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 ?
After some further testing I have to correct my self. There is actually a pretty big difference between 44 and 96 KHz. Especially on the rtas effects (reverb, delay, etc) . They sound clearer and better in my opinion.

It also seem to be less of the pitchbend/chorus effect on DVerb at 96HKz.

On a dry track without any effects I can't hear the difference that much.
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-12-2010, 11:28 AM
Park Seward's Avatar
Park Seward Park Seward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 4,286
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

I was able to record a 30kHz signal to PT LE 002 at 96k. So the higher sampling rate does record signals greater than 20k. Unfortunately, my speakers can't reproduce that and I could not hear that sound even if they could.

I don't believe that higher frequencies make lower frequencies any better or more precise. Smoother reverb tails have to do with bit depth, not sampling rate.

With digital migration of a analog tape to CD, I record to PT at 44.1. I see no benefit recording at 96 and then SCR to 44.1,
__________________
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
  #20  
Old 07-13-2010, 05:42 AM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 2,899
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Seward View Post
Smoother reverb tails have to do with bit depth, not sampling rate.
Is this correct ? I can defenetly hear a big difference especially on reverb between 44 and 96KHz at the same bit bandwidth (24bit).
__________________
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 04:00 PM.


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