Aaron and I are buddies so it's always fun to point out the other POV. ;-) In the end he's probably right though. :-) At the outset I'll state that mostly I record at 44.1K. My issue in the past has been that all frequency resamplers seem to cause negative artifacts to my ears. When I record at 48K I like the sound, but when I down-sample that material to 44.1K I find I don't like the sound as much as I do if I just recorded the same material at 44.1K in the first place. One thing to keep in mind is that this really is becoming a mute issue. If I have understood things correctly DVDs are mastered with a 48K sample rate so should you be thinking about releasing both a DVD and a CD you'll have to resample for one or the other. Might as well be 48K, 88.2K or 96K. You'll have to switch things around somewhere. Hope this helps, Mark On 1/16/07, Aaron Trumm <aaron@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's a debate. People have varying opinions. One opinion is that getting something recorded at a higher quality allows you to process more accurate information as you mix, and so on and that school likes to record at high sampling rates and keep it there until the last minute, and then very carefully do conversions for cd product. another school of thought says just record at 44.1 because it's going to be there in the end anyway. I think the balance has tipped in favor of the former model (recording at higher resolutions and bit depths). that's what I do. and in the commercial recording studios, people do that mostly (or record on analog and then dub to really high res protools for mix down) just a note, too, on the difference between sample rate and bit depth - very basically, sample rate determines the highest frequency you can record (half of the sample rate) and bit depth determines how much dynamic range (loud/soft) you can record. some people believe that bit depth is WAY more important, and don't mind recording at 44.1 as long as the bit depth is high (like 24 bit). In theory this holds because half of 44.1 is 22khz and that's higher than we can hear anyway. contrary to some people's beliefs (like mine long ago) higher sampling rates don't add any low end richness, just high end accuracy. I think it's wise to record at high sampling rates and bit depths. -- Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "millward" <millward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:54 PM Subject: sample rate question I was wondering, since the CD sample rate is 44100, is there any advantage to recording at a higher sample rate? My sound card, an Audiophile 24/96, allows much higher sample rates and my hard drive is big enough to store the resulting files, I think, but what purpose would it serve when in the end, an audio CD is only good for 44100 ? I'd have to convert down just to be able to burn the final product onto CD anyway. There must be some advantage to recording at a sample rate above 44100. Could someone tell me what it is?
