Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz? (Read 4331 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Ok, I have tracked down the original emi uk pressing of parachutes, and am currently loving it.It's just, I want it on my ipod also, so I can take the superior mastering with me everywhere I go.This may sound redundant, but I can hear the difference between a sonically sound good version and a bad or less desirable version.Now the thing is, I have read that apparently parachutes was recorded digitally in 16 bit 44.khz format.So now this is where I am at a standstill, should I encode using 48khz or 44?Would it make any difference?

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Reply #1 –
You should only change the samplerate of a file when there are technical reasons to do so (putting it in a media that doesn't support the current samplerate, avoiding a hardware/software deficiency that happens when using that samplerate, ...).

Concretely, I mean that audio quality is not a reason to do so, since upsampling does not increase the quality.

So, what do you have?
CD -> 44Khz.
Lossless file from somewhere (including DVD)-> keep its samplerate if you ipod supports it. In case you need to downsample, check with a spectograph if there source has content above 22Khz to decide to use 48khz or not.
Some other analog source -> Digitize it at the samplerate that you want to use, It probably doesn't matter what the original was. Here, 48Khz might help to get a better digital capture (less filter rolloff).
Some other digital source -> guess that doesn't apply as lossless, so samplerate differences wouldn't be the main subject to worry about.

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Reply #2 –
I think he's talking about vinyl. I would do 44.1 just for the sake of compatibility with CD.

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Reply #3 –
So, he's buying a vinyl of an album that was produced digitally at a narrow quality, just to digitize it back again and want (i guess) to retain as much quality as possible...?
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Reply #4 –
Well it's not as stupid as it sounds... I've heard the vinyl version of this album and it has more dynamic range compared to the CD (this was backed up by a TT-DR analysis).  Although modern vinyl releases do suffer from heavy compression, it can sometimes be less severe than the CD release.

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: edwardar on
Well it's not as stupid as it sounds... I've heard the vinyl version of this album and it has more dynamic range compared to the CD (this was backed up by a TT-DR analysis).  Although modern vinyl releases do suffer from heavy compression, it can sometimes be less severe than the CD release.



I always wonder how much of the 'extra dynamic range' of a vinyl pressing is real, and how much is spurious (e.g., due to noise spikes on the vinyl)?

Axon?  You reading this?  ;>
 

Should I record at 48 or 44.1 kHz?

Reply #6 –
If I understand it correctly, there are two kinds of dynamic range... and he was perhaps talking about the latter of the following:
The media/playback chain (technical) dynamic range mostly affected by amount of noise introduced.
The music's dynamic range, i.e. the ratio of the most quiet part of the music and the loudest one.

If you use CD as format but make everything equally loud (no quiet parts in the music), its technical dynamic range won't make it more dynamic (in the musical sense). If you used vinyl but balanced out the quiet and loud parts of the music, it could still sound "better", despite the audible hiss.