44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

[Nicolau]

I use 48 simply because I like the number, unlike 44.1, which is a strange number
48 looks like one of those typical digital numbers Multiples of 48 are also common.

[sQeetz]

I use 48 simply because I like the number, unlike 44.1, which is a strange number
48 looks like one of those typical digital numbers Multiples of 48 are also common.

32 or 64 would be one of those... unless you see the digits individually 4 and 8... then I would agree

[Nicolau]

I use 48 simply because I like the number, unlike 44.1, which is a strange number
48 looks like one of those typical digital numbers Multiples of 48 are also common.

32 or 64 would be one of those... unless you see the digits individually 4 and 8... then I would agree

Yes, but I thought I have come across 96 and 192 khz sampling rates.

However, on Adobe it says:

88.2kHz.

This is now the gold standard for hi-res recordings. Using this sample rate produces less distortion (called ‘aliasing’) when converting from analogue to digital and allows greater freedom when mixing and mastering.

https://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/ ... pling.html

[whyterabbyt]

However, on Adobe it says:

88.2kHz.

Yeah, right after it says most modern recordings use 44.1Khz because CDs.

[El°HYM]

A lot of Hit Records have been made using 44.1 kHz since 1982.

[BertKoor]

Using this sample rate produces less distortion (called ‘aliasing’) when converting from analogue to digital

Does the writer of this truely understand what aliasing is and how it originates?
I think: nope

[Examigan]

The problem with 44.1khz is that it can produce aliasing.

This is what I read and why it was recommended to me to use 48 kHz when recording, to make room to filter it out as far as I understood. And the convert it back to 44.1 kHz later

With 96khz this is not a problem anymore, since the frequency range is way beyond the hearing range, so if the aliasing happens you won't hear it.
Modern audio interfaces and well written audio software filters aliasing, but as I said this just a safety measure, not a strong requirement.

I was adviced not to use 96 kHz as some plug-ins might actually sound worse, I don't know which or how though

When I was creating synth audio demos for a certain developer, they always wanted the demos sent to them in 96kHz. I never had issues with that setting and the finished demos sounded great.

[mystran]

Using this sample rate produces less distortion (called ‘aliasing’) when converting from analogue to digital

Does the writer of this truely understand what aliasing is and how it originates?
I think: nope

I want to observe that they are talking about analog to digital which does suffer from aliasing if the ADC filters are inadequate.. and 44.1kHz gives a transition band that's 20kHz to 22kHz which is not a whole lot, especially if you're trying to sample directly at 44.1kHz and need to do your brickwall in analog. So if they are comparing 44.1kHz vs. 88.2kHz the advice is not entirely dumb.. but obviously there's nothing special about 88.2kHz except that it's a slightly higher rate.

Obviously with a modern design you (well, the hardware) could just as well sample at a higher rate and then downsample with a high quality digital filter, so building an interface that can do it just fine at 44.1kHz (at least as far as software is concerned) is not a huge deal, but perhaps the advice was written say 20 years ago (when every FIR tap cost a lot more than it does today) and never updated, or perhaps some modern ADC designs still cut corners (no idea), etc.

Overall though, I think this is probably a case of "broken phone" situation where someone had the right idea and then a technical writer translated it to something slightly silly that kinda misses the real point.. but I still think someone somewhere probably did have the right idea: that ADCs are imperfect and sampling at a higher rate (so you can then downsample with a high quality digital filter) is not entirely stupid.

[_al_]

I use 48 simply because I like the number, unlike 44.1, which is a strange number
48 looks like one of those typical digital numbers Multiples of 48 are also common.

32 or 64 would be one of those... unless you see the digits individually 4 and 8... then I would agree

For me, they are all good numbers, because they are musical numbers (everything in blocks of eight... grids in a bar, bars in an eight bar song section etc). In fact, I'm so weird, I even sometimes let that logic influence me, when I'm moving sliders on fx plugins

That said... I wouldn't use 48khz because I can't hear the difference, so it can jog on.

[Winstontaneous]

A lot of Hit Records have been made using 44.1 kHz since 1982.

Also...A lot of SHit Records have been made using 44.1 kHz since 1982.

[DaveL60]

For myself, 44.1K is plenty good enough. When you started bouncing between two cheap tape recorders (one cassette, one R-to-R) in the late 70s, then moved up to a Fostex X-15 cassette 4-track in the 80s, anything digital sounds fantastic.

Work I've done for a friend is all at 48K because he's putting it out as videos on YT. Given he's the only person who really cares about anything I'm doing, I'm setting my defaults to 48K at this point because it's just easier that way.

[vitocorleone123]

Using digital synths and effects? There's several good reasons to use 48 or higher. 44.1 is more likely to have issues, but with careful selection and testing you can probably avoid most/all of them as long as you don't mind working with more constraints.

Only using a DAW as a recorder for analog gear? 44.1 would work ok, but may need to be upsampled for digital publishing.

It's currently 2024 and a LOT of tools are digital now, so... I stick with 48khz, personally.

[DarkS474]

This is a good article on the subject:

https://alexkenis.wordpress.com/2015/09 ... ingmixing/