naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

3. Re: Choosing the right sampling rate and sample size

Subject: 3. Re: Choosing the right sampling rate and sample size
From: "Scott Fraser" scottbfraser
Date: Tue May 18, 2010 8:20 am ((PDT))
<<Scott,

I am really interested in this comment. To date I have been recording 24
bit/48K because those are the highest settings that my recorder will run
to, and I had been assuming that here bigger would be better.

Are there any downsides to using 48k for recording, then targeting 44.1
(for example), rather than recording 44.1 in the first place?

At the moment my recordings do not have any particular usage in mind, so
ideally I want to make them in a way that will not limit any unknown
future usage.>>

Richard:
While the truth is that higher sampling rates unequivocally result in
greater bandwidth, the reality is that the difference between 44.1k &
48k is, in musical terms, about a whole step (two semi-tones), from a
bit sharp of "E" to a little bit sharp of "F#", two & a third octaves
above the fundamental of the highest note on a piano. While there is
merit to extending the bandwidth an octave or more beyond the CD
standard, IMHO it is misguided to merely add a whole step of
extension, if the intent is to achieve extended high frequency
response. There are those who claim to hear an improvement at 48k over
Message: 44.
Subject: 1k, a claim of which I am extremely skeptical. In my profession as
a recording engineer, producer & mastering engineer of acoustic music
(classical, jazz, folk styles) I often work with other "Golden Ear"
producers, & none of them has ever insisted upon, nor reliably
distinguished between 44.1k & 88.1k or 96k projects. This is not to
say there is no audible difference. There is, but it is vanishingly
small & dependent upon everything in the entire recording chain being
of the highest possible caliber, including the quality of the
recording venue, vis a vis extraneous noise. The downside to recording
at 48k, which is something I occasionally have to deal with in
projects recorded elsewhere & brought to me to mix and/or master is
that they have to eventually be converted to 44.1k, which at the
highest quality settings available can take several times the realtime
length of the file & is a completely unnecessary step had the project
originated at 44.1k, where it was destined from the outset. Projects
coming in at 88.1k or 96k are easier to tolerate since that decision
is presumably based upon a realistic expectation of improved high
frequency resolution & clarity. But 48k is merely a pain in the ass on
a professional level since it accomplishes nothing quality-wise yet
still takes a lot of extra time to process. Of course, if one is
working specifically in the film or video field, instead of music, the
exact opposite is true. It's very unfortunate the two businesses
didn't get their standards agreed upon long ago & now it's much too
late to change any of that.

Scott Fraser








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU