|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
Pro Tools Ult 2024.3.1, HDX 2, MTRX/SPQ, RME BBF Pro + MADIface Pro • S1 x 2, Fire Max11 x 2, Dock, iPad Air5 • Mac Mini 14,12, 12 core, macOS 13.6.6 • RAM 32GB, SSD 4TB, GPU 19 core • QNAP TVS-872XT 148TB TB3 Last edited by BScout; 07-10-2018 at 01:58 PM. Reason: removed wrong "Laser Disc originally used 96k" |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
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
__________________
James Cadwallader Mac Studio, 64GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, Glyph 2TB USB3 HDD, OWC drive dock, Mac OS Monterey 12.6.8 Pro Tools Ultimate 2023.9, HD Native, Focusrite Red 8Pre Presonus Faderport, Pro Tools | Control |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
Use 48 ---> go make music!!!
__________________
Desktop build: PT 2020.5 / Win 11 / i9-11900K @ 5.1GHz / 64GB / 4TB NVMe PCIe 4 / Gigabyte Z590 Vision D / PreSonus 2626 Laptop: PT 2020.5 / Win 11 / i5-12500H / 16GB / 1TB NVMe / Lenovo IdeaPad 5i Pro / U-PHORIA UMC1820 Ancient/Legacy (still works!): PT 5 & 6 / OS9 & OSX / Mac G4 / DIGI 001 Click for audio/video demo Click for resume |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
FWIW, I do 99.9% of my work at 48K. The old idea of staying at 44.1K for CD(as the final product) stemmed from the "less than stellar" sample rate conversion back in the early days of digital. These days, the SRC is so good that its unlikely that anyone can hear any issues.
__________________
HP Z4 workstation, Mbox Studio 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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)
__________________
Pro Tools Ult 2024.3.1, HDX 2, MTRX/SPQ, RME BBF Pro + MADIface Pro • S1 x 2, Fire Max11 x 2, Dock, iPad Air5 • Mac Mini 14,12, 12 core, macOS 13.6.6 • RAM 32GB, SSD 4TB, GPU 19 core • QNAP TVS-872XT 148TB TB3 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer.
A million thanks, guys, that was really helpful. You are the best.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Mac Mini M1 | Mac OS 12.6.1 Monterey | Avid Carbon + 2x Carbon Pre | Pro Tools Studio 2024.3 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 44.1 vs 48 khz... looking for a simple answer
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. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Bob's room 615 562-4346 Interview Artists are the gatekeepers of truth! - Paul Robeson |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
simple question..hopefully simple answer | sethwudel | Pro Tools 10 | 3 | 12-28-2012 06:49 PM |
Simple Question, please someone give me a simple answer! | lukaiow | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 1 | 04-19-2011 11:00 AM |
Simple question about 8.0.3 that needs a simple answer | FS1 | Pro Tools M-Powered (Win) | 0 | 12-23-2009 06:37 AM |
Simple Question in need for Simple Answer | The_Communist | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 3 | 01-24-2004 11:19 AM |
simple question simple answer | Salvedor Felix Troche | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 2 | 11-10-1999 08:41 PM |