44.1 or 48 kHz recording?

[ba'hart]

Hi everyone,

I want your opinion cos I'm a bit confused now. All of my recordings end up one way or the other on CD. Until now I've recorded my sessions on 48 KHz (if 96KHz is the future I thought for now 48 would at least be better than 44.1) and then convert the final mix to 44.1 Does this have a greater effect in a negative sense then recording on 48 in a positive, and if so, does this theory also implies that recording on 24 bit is worse than 16 bit cos you have that converted to when it goes to CD? Your advice is very welcome!

[CCash]

Howdy ba'hart. This is the deal... took me a while to get all the facts and test things myself, but all the gurus have confirmed these "rules":

At the moment, sample rate conversions (src) are generally bad news. When you convert, you are changing the data to fit at the new sample rate. Something has to give. An analog to digital conversion (AD or DA), on the other hand, isn't changing the 1's and 0's around.

AD and DA converters are generally pretty good and cost-effective these days. If you require top-notch converters, companies like Apogee are making high-end boxes to do the job.

As for SRCs, Pro Tools built-in options (good, best, tweak-head, etc.) will work, but as you know they take quite a while to convert. Roger Nichols' advice is that the tweak-head setting sounds bad, but "best" sounds fine. Go figure. I have to do direct comparison soon myself, but I'll take his word for now. There are some companies that make stand-alone SRCs, I think Z-systems, that he recommended as well.

This part is surprising... rather than do an SRC, the guys who have great AD/DA converters, like an Apogee AD8000, send their 48 or 96kHZ digital signal out to the box to do a DA conversion, and loop it right back in to do an AD conversion at 44.1. So if you've got great converters, actually going DA/AD is a better sounding option than doing a sample rate conversion.

The bottom line is: if you're going to CD in the end, all of this can be avoided if the project just starts at 44.1. As for 96kHz, lots of people can't hear the difference, and there are raging debates over this. Plus, it takes up twice as much storage.

I have two projects in the works... one was started at 48kHz so that I could interface digitally with some of my other 48 gear. To go to CD, I need to get the final mixes down to 44.1, so I have to try three tests soon: 1.) 48 to 44.1 using "Best"
2.) Using "Tweak head"
3.) Sending it out analog and back in digital 44.1, using digi's converters. Should be enlightening, and time consuming.

I hope this stuff helped a little.

Curt

[haze]

thanks, CC. I've been wonderding about the
same thing. I have an apogee rosetta. Sounds
like i'll just leave it 44.1k. (& import my
audio loops at 44.1 as well).

haze

[esymons]

I haven't seen a response to "does this theory also implies that recording on 24 bit is worse than 16 bit cos you have that converted to when it goes to CD?"

I kept my protools project/882/7300 and have been considering using spdif out of 001/G4 to spdif in on the 882/7300 and recording directly to SDII. Anyone out there doing this? How does it compare to bouncing to disk from 24 bit to 16 bit?

[Sir Bob]

Haze,

Please describe the impact of the Rosetta in a Digi 001/PTLE system. Is it worth the extra bucks when the Digi 001 is supposed to be pretty good as it is. I have a great mic preamp and a fair mix of mics so these aren't big issues. Thanks.

[haze]

Actually, there are quite a few of us that
bought the rosetta to accompany the 001.
Before the 001, i was comparing the specs
to some of the competition, and although i
definitely wanted the 001, i just felt compelled to buy a world-class 24-bit converter. Even many of the TDM guys prefer
the AD-8000 over the 888-24 Pro-Tools interface. I've never heard anyone i talked
to before hand that didn't tell me the apogee would be a great addition to my
studio setup, and the rosetta has got nothing
but rave reviews in virtually all the audio
mags i've checked out.

The ultimate test is the one that fits neatly
inside your back pocket (your wallet), or as
the great Larry Williams puts it, the final approval of your studio's business plan by
that significant other.

haze

[ba'hart]

Thanks Curt for your response. The main reason for me to work on 48 kHz is I find reverb plugins and others plugs sound significally better, or am I fooled by the idea? I'd really appreciate your opinions on this matter. I even know a professional master company who converts 44.1 to 48. then performs all the DSP and converts the final master back to 44.1
I agree that a digital s/r conversion has its limitations, but does a analog ada conversion has it's own too?
Buying an external ada converter is not an option for me since the digi001 is a budget system and I like to keep it that way.
What about converting 24 bit digitally to 16?

thanks for your response and greetz from Holland