Is anything actually gained by recording at 24 bit 48Khz??
- Thread starter shred101
- Start date
jipchen
ForesterStudio
Not to be offensive but 48 is imho crap for music, 48 is for videos.
And even if it had any advantages, downsampling to 44.1 will make it worse. And you'll have to to that for a CD / mp3.
Downsampling is baad, mkay?
If you think you need a higher bit depth you should go with 88.2
And even if it had any advantages, downsampling to 44.1 will make it worse. And you'll have to to that for a CD / mp3.
Downsampling is baad, mkay?
If you think you need a higher bit depth you should go with 88.2
ahjteam
Anssi Tenhunen
I was just listening to the record and noticed something really odd. The word "dance" he mentions is panned left. However, when listening on the album, it appears that its in fact panned right. If you listen to the single on youtube however, it is panned left
He was talking about the hard panned delays, the vocals themselves are on the center of the stereoimage
BLUElightCory
Member
Not to be offensive but 48 is imho crap for music, 48 is for videos.
And even if it had any advantages, downsampling to 44.1 will make it worse. And you'll have to to that for a CD / mp3.
Downsampling is baad, mkay?
If you think you need a higher bit depth you should go with 88.2
48kHz is "crap"? Better tell that to the thousands of engineers (including me) who are tracking music at 48kHz. Any decent sample rate converter should have zero problems downsampling to 48kHz.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Downsampling from 96.2 to 44.1 khz is okay, because the downsampling creates no distortion (it just removes 1 bit every 2 bits);
Downsampling from 48 to 44.1 is not the same. Even if it's hard to hear, it adds a distortion to the signal because of the calculus of which bits to keep, because the division of 48 by 44.1 is not as easy.
If you plan on dithering to 16 bit 44.1khz to create a Cd master... Then you are may just be doing worse, because 48 againts 44.1 is not a significant improvement like could be 96 in term of resolution, and the downsampling, from a non multiple format, is more destructive than the beneficit you had.
It's all up to everyone's ear to find what is more convenient of course.
BLUElightCory
Member
This is a common misconception, but with modern conversion, the "88.2 to 44.1 is easier math" theory does not really apply, because that's not how the math works with all modern sample rate converters, and different converter and SRC designs can yield different results. Not to mention that higher sample rates allows the use of more gentle filtering in the ADC process.
To each his own!
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Hum, do you mean the maths don't work because the converters are not perfect (because inherently having to deal with the real physical world) ?
C_F_H_13
Protools Guru
exactly. Only time I go to 48k is if I have to deliver for tv/film/video games. IMO there is no sonic difference between 44.1 and 48k. You will get a more significant difference if you increase/decrease the gain on your pres by 1 db.
egan.
daylightdies.com
No, I believe he is saying that in an 88.2 to 44.1 conversion DAWs aren't just throwing out every other sample like many people seem to believe.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Downsampling may in fact be more accurate for some conversions than others, but it's MUCH more complicated than just "halving=easy, 44.1/48 ing is hard"
jipchen
ForesterStudio
As I said, it's just crap in my humble opinion... Why are YOU tracking with 48 khz? Do you like the "sound" better?
You certainly loose signal and quality when downsampling (no matter how good your equipment is), and the gained quality with 48khz tracking (instead of 44) is (to say the least) questionable.
So I guess it's just needless to use 48 kHz, even if the downsampling does not make things sound worse.
But as you said, to each his own.
Just noticed the Fireface can be set to virtually any sample rate.
I'll soon try to record with 176,4 kHz
Perhaps I'll hear a difference.
