44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

[osiris]

No don't do that for a DJ set. The only thing you'd eat up is bandwidth.

[nusound mind]

This was the video that convinced me to switch from 44.1 to 48. Maybe it was just Dan Worrell's voice that mesmerized me but I have heard other engineers/producers say they prefer 48khz.


Idk that it makes a ton of difference overall really. I probably have placebo ears for thinking I prefer the sound of 48 but it's not substantively higher in cpu cost for me esp. depending on buffer sizes so I use 48.

[osiris]

I can't tell a difference in sound and I get confused because I did a 24 bit wave file but when I pull it up in Audacity the little letters tell me it's 32 bit (I think it says floating somewhere in there). Bits and beeps and bops and borts.

[FranklyFlawless]

44.1 Khz for consumer audio distribution, 48 Khz for consumer video distribution.

When recording audio, it makes sense to use the highest sample rate and bit-rate supported for your equipment for archival purposes or "remasters". Who knows, maybe humans will start consuming music through bone conduction in the future.

See the relevant Sweetwater and Wikipedia article for more information.

[Ploki]

44.1 Khz for consumer audio distribution, 48 Khz for consumer video distribution.

When recording audio, it makes sense to use the highest sample rate and bit-rate supported for your equipment for archival purposes or "remasters". Who knows, maybe humans will start consuming music through bone conduction in the future.

See the relevant Sweetwater and Wikipedia article for more information.

44.1 is CD only. There no other medium that calls for 44.1, all streaming services support 48k.

You’re implying there’s useful info above 20k - that we can’t capture (cause mics are designed lower) or monitor or mix

[skarvika]

Which digital EQs have a steep lowpass slope that go up to 24KHz or above?

AMEK EQ 250 has a LP that goes up to 30KHz.

[FranklyFlawless]

44.1 is CD only. There no other medium that calls for 44.1, all streaming services support 48k.

You’re implying there’s useful info above 20k - that we can’t capture (cause mics are designed lower) or monitor or mix

Either way works, that is why there are two audio standards for consumer applications. It depends on your target audience and distribution medium.

If you are producing music for a younger audience who generally have a fuller hearing range, or other demographics who possess a similar ability, it can make sense to use higher sample rates to accomodate them. Just because we cannot hear higher frequencies due to aging or other factors does not mean others are the same. If there is a market for hi-fi audio, it makes economical sense to utilize it. Whether or not the listener can actually perceive such detail is irrelevant for this purpose.

[MidnightRunner]

44.1 Khz for consumer audio distribution, 48 Khz for consumer video distribution.

When recording audio, it makes sense to use the highest sample rate and bit-rate supported for your equipment for archival purposes or "remasters". Who knows, maybe humans will start consuming music through bone conduction in the future.

See the relevant Sweetwater and Wikipedia article for more information.

44.1 is CD only. There no other medium that calls for 44.1, all streaming services support 48k.

You’re implying there’s useful info above 20k - that we can’t capture (cause mics are designed lower) or monitor or mix

You can't hear the difference. 44.1 covers way beyond your human hearing abilities. Go to a audiologist and get an audiogram done. You will be surprised how many frequencies that you see on the plugin dials you can't hear.

[kritikon]

44.1 is CD only. There no other medium that calls for 44.1, all streaming services support 48k.

You’re implying there’s useful info above 20k - that we can’t capture (cause mics are designed lower) or monitor or mix

Either way works, that is why there are two audio standards for consumer applications. It depends on your target audience and distribution medium.

If you are producing music for a younger audience who generally have a fuller hearing range, or other demographics who possess a similar ability, it can make sense to use higher sample rates to accomodate them. Just because we cannot hear higher frequencies due to aging or other factors does not mean others are the same. If there is a market for hi-fi audio, it makes economical sense to utilize it. Whether or not the listener can actually perceive such detail is irrelevant for this purpose.

Not sure about that. The younger audience are far more likely to be streaming, and at poor quality too. Less likely to be listening on hifi etc that can reproduce music at quality, and more likely to be on earbuds or phone or some other dire media. Actually makes sense to use lowest rates for younger audience despite their sharper hearing. Catch22 - us old farts are the ones with flashy hifi and quality gear but our hearing's shot to shit

[vurt]

44.1 is CD only. There no other medium that calls for 44.1, all streaming services support 48k.

You’re implying there’s useful info above 20k - that we can’t capture (cause mics are designed lower) or monitor or mix

Either way works, that is why there are two audio standards for consumer applications. It depends on your target audience and distribution medium.

If you are producing music for a younger audience who generally have a fuller hearing range, or other demographics who possess a similar ability, it can make sense to use higher sample rates to accomodate them. Just because we cannot hear higher frequencies due to aging or other factors does not mean others are the same. If there is a market for hi-fi audio, it makes economical sense to utilize it. Whether or not the listener can actually perceive such detail is irrelevant for this purpose.

Not sure about that. The younger audience are far more likely to be streaming, and at poor quality too. Less likely to be listening on hifi etc that can reproduce music at quality, and more likely to be on earbuds or phone or some other dire media. Actually makes sense to use lowest rates for younger audience despite their sharper hearing. Catch22 - us old farts are the ones with flashy hifi and quality gear but our hearing's shot to shit

youre a nurse arent you?

two questions if i may...
whats the procedure (test) where they stick needles in your fingers and bicep, then you wiggle them, and it registers a frequency which can be interpreted by someone cleverer than me? is it ecg electro cardio gram? or is that just the heart?

question two...
are you or have you ever been a member of the organisation "hpanwo"?

[Ploki]

You can't hear the difference. 44.1 covers way beyond your human hearing abilities. Go to a audiologist and get an audiogram done. You will be surprised how many frequencies that you see on the plugin dials you can't hear.

My point is - why do 44.1, if you can do 48k and cover everything, with no need for resampling.
(The only exception is CD, which is in the vast majority not the primary target medium)

I did an audiogram two years ago when i had an ear infection, and had a small dip on 2k that cleared up with the infection.
i had (and still have) oddly sensitive hearing and could sense (a fairly annoying) presence of 22k sinewaves (not distortion) easily when i was in my early twenties.
I can still do 21k in my thirties. (although i need to crank the levels quite a bit when up) but linearly up to 18k at 85dB SPL.
did a test with a few of my colleagues (21.5k) and they muted it sporadically and i could tell when it was on or not, none of them could and aren't bothered at all by cranked 19k+

Either way works, that is why there are two audio standards for consumer applications. It depends on your target audience and distribution medium.

If you are producing music for a younger audience who generally have a fuller hearing range, or other demographics who possess a similar ability, it can make sense to use higher sample rates to accomodate them. Just because we cannot hear higher frequencies due to aging or other factors does not mean others are the same. If there is a market for hi-fi audio, it makes economical sense to utilize it. Whether or not the listener can actually perceive such detail is irrelevant for this purpose.

there are "two standards" because CD, the more we move to streaming/nonphysical digital, the less is 44.1 relevant. Apple Digital Masters guidelines suggest 48k for example.

There's nothing above 48k (up to 24KHz audible range) that vast majority of human can hear

What does change is what others have noted and is significant: AA filter response and a bit more headroom for foldback over nyquist.
The hifi market is 99% bullshit anyway and it's already utilised by cable lifter and gold plated pins

Frankly, i wished we moved to 60khz standard and called it a day.

[FranklyFlawless]

Not sure about that. The younger audience are far more likely to be streaming, and at poor quality too. Less likely to be listening on hifi etc that can reproduce music at quality, and more likely to be on earbuds or phone or some other dire media. Actually makes sense to use lowest rates for younger audience despite their sharper hearing. Catch22 - us old farts are the ones with flashy hifi and quality gear but our hearing's shot to shit

Ironically the truth, but audiophiles are a small demographic across various age groups. Hi-fi equipment is usually marketed for indoors, so seeing them out in public is very rare. Even now, I have never seen anything past Apple AirPods Max headphones on transit, for better or worse, except for my own gear.

By the time we are aware of our hearing range and have money to buy audiophile gear, we have already lost most of our upper hearing range. It is tragic that is the story for most of us. At least we can give that opportunity to our (grand)children if we have any.

[jetbean24]

The difference is barely noticeable to the average listener to be honest

[kritikon]

youre a nurse arent you?

two questions if i may...
whats the procedure (test) where they stick needles in your fingers and bicep, then you wiggle them, and it registers a frequency which can be interpreted by someone cleverer than me? is it ecg electro cardio gram? or is that just the heart?

question two...
are you or have you ever been a member of the organisation "hpanwo"?

1st question - dunno. Sounds like torture? I've not come across anything that sounds like that, but it might just be some specialty I've never worked in. EGGs are just stickers all over your chest/arms/legs and we record electrical activity of the heart. EEG similar but for the brain, still just stickers/funny looking hat, not needles. Are you sure it was really a doctor or nurse that was doing that to you?

Hpanwo...I had to go look that up. Hospital Porters Against the New World Order? I had a quick look but didn't want to click on any of the myriad links in it. Is it genuine or a pisstake? My first thought was whoever that Ben guy is...genius (only if it's really a pisstake)or sectionable. I noticed the complete lack of any replies on his forums and he sure is prolific. He can't be serious, is he? No, I definitely am not a member, but I wouldn't admit it if I was...

[MidnightRunner]

My point is - why do 44.1, if you can do 48k and cover everything, with no need for resampling.
(The only exception is CD, which is in the vast majority not the primary target medium)

there are "two standards" because CD, the more we move to streaming/nonphysical digital, the less is 44.1 relevant. Apple Digital Masters guidelines suggest 48k for example.

There's nothing above 48k (up to 24KHz audible range) that vast majority of human can hear

What does change is what others have noted and is significant: AA filter response and a bit more headroom for foldback over nyquist.

Yes, All true theoretically but its all just numbers. For archival purposes? I am not Paul McArtney. I really doubt I will ever need to go back and re-open music projects I made 50 years ago and remix and remaster them.