44.1 or 48 kHz

This forum is for discussing Wave Corrector, audio projects, tips & tricks etc.

Moderator: Derek

44.1 or 48 kHz

Postby mannie.gross » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:11 am

Wavecorrectore offers two sampling rates for recording: 44.1 and 48 kHz. I was wondering if there are any practical or theoretical advantages of one over the other in recording LPs?

Thanks and regards,
mannie.gross
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 11:31 am
Location: Melbourne

Postby Ray Bell » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:31 pm

If you intend to convert your LPs to CDs you will need to record at the standard 44.1kHz.

48kHz offers a theoretical advantage of needing less aggressive filtering to avoid beat frequency components. It therefore offers potentially better quality at the expense of larger file sizes. Whether this potential improvement is actually achieved in practice will depend on the design of the particular sound card used.

Ray
Ray Bell
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:31 pm
Location: Harrow, England

Postby mannie.gross » Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:32 am

Re the statement, "If you intend to convert your LPs to CDs you will need to record at the standard 44.1kHz.", I just recorded an LP side at 48kHz with Wave Corrector and then burnt it to CD with Nero. The CD plays fine in my stand alone CD Player, so I presume Nero automatically converts back to 44.1 kHz. If this is the case then we can record at either frequency and write to CD at 44.1 kHz.

So the theoretical advantage of recording at 48 kHz (which includes the capture of more information) may be offset to some degree by the interpolation required to convert to 44.1 kHz. I wonder if anyone has done any listening test comparisons.

It would also be nice to know what all the theoretical advantages/disadvantages are for the two recording options.

Regards,
Mannie
mannie.gross
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 11:31 am
Location: Melbourne

Postby Glenn » Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:34 pm

Hi,
I've done some experimentations with this and found any differences to be very minute once the the file is down sampled. Ideally, the re-sampling needs to be performed with anti-alias filtering to obtain the most accurate interpolation. I believe Nero does re-sampling on the fly and doesn't perform any anti-alias filtering, so the advantages of recording at a higher rate are nil, unless you want to keep a better master on your machine. I've done re-sampling through SoundForge using the anti-alias filtering and it is a very time consuming process, even on a fast machine. Still, I couldn't hear any appreciable difference in the final burn. In my experience, the best results come with using a good soundcard and record player, and taking great care in the recording process to minimize noise and distortion.
Glenn
Glenn
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:07 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Why 48kHz in WC?

Postby deadpoirotsketch » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:01 am

The standard for DAT was 48kHz but I think that standard is more or less dead now as people are using 96kHz and even 192kHz sampling rates and 24 bit bit-depth in music studios these days. There are quite a few relatively cheap soundcards capable of recording at that sort of quality level these days, but Wave Corrector is not aimed at that market. In the end most of its users will, I suspect, simply want to record out to a CDR at 44.1kHz, 16 bit without the added hassle of downsampling.

I have read elsewhere that the higher the sample rate and bit depth of your original recording then as a rule the better quality of your 44.1kHz, 16bit wav file after resampling compared to a directly recorded 44.1kHz, 16bit wav file. I think that would depend on the quality of the resampling algorithm and software used. You can pay a lot for high end software! I think there is a diminishing returns factor if you are using a typical domestic soundcard rather than high-end professional hardware. I couldn't repeat the technical explanations - it was all Nyquist and anti-aliasing stuff and made my brain hurt.

I'm not quite sure why Wave Corrector has a 48kHz option, except there were reports on the Internet forums that the Soundblaster Live and Audigy cards automatically upsampled any 44.1kHz input to 48kHz for internal processing and then downsampled it again on output. Apparantly that was a bad thing for technical reasons I can't remember, and purists bought alternative cards that didn't do it. If you did have an SB Live or an audigy then apparently it was better to record directly and process at 48kHz to avoid the resampling - although you would still have to write out a 44.1kHz wav file to record it to a playable audio CD.

If that is of interest I'm sure you can Google out the relevent forum articles. Although Creative remained pretty quiet about this apparent fault there was quite a lot of discussion on the forums which I dipped into now and again without getting really involved.

My apologies in advance if I've reported this SBLive/Audigy business incorrectly as it was a few years ago now and I went out and bought an Audiophile 2496 to do my digitising instead, and I kept my Audigy installed for games and MIDI.
deadpoirotsketch
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: UK

Audigy panic prevention

Postby deadpoirotsketch » Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:04 am

I don't want to make anyone reading my previous post think they have to throw out their audigy card, so here is a link to a site which explains the 48/44.1kHz resampling problem in straightforward terms:

http://www.pcmus.com/choosecard.htm#whynot

and here is a link to someone who has done extensive and serious testing and whose message seems to be that the fuss was all over-the-top and the Audigy cards are pretty good.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/hamakerd/sbsrc/

If you personally can't actually hear a difference because of the 48/44.1 resampling then is there a problem?

I personally have an Audigy but I don't use it for recording. I won't be rushing out to buy the new Creative X-live. It sounds fantastic but I think it better to wait 6 months and let other people dig down and find out any shortcomings and whether they really matter or not. (Smile).
deadpoirotsketch
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why 48kHz in WC?

Postby Derek » Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:17 am

deadpoirotsketch wrote:I'm not quite sure why Wave Corrector has a 48kHz option, except there were reports on the Internet forums that the Soundblaster Live and Audigy cards automatically upsampled any 44.1kHz input to 48kHz for internal processing and then downsampled it again on output. Apparantly that was a bad thing for technical reasons I can't remember, and purists bought alternative cards that didn't do it. If you did have an SB Live or an audigy then apparently it was better to record directly and process at 48kHz to avoid the resampling - although you would still have to write out a 44.1kHz wav file to record it to a playable audio CD.


48kHz sampling was originally put in for DAT users. Whether there are still any around, I don't know.

It is also necessary for users you record digital radio broadcasts. These are almost universally sampled at 48kHz and if you connect to your PC via S/PDIF you are obliged to record at this sample rate.
Derek Higgins
Wave Corrector Developer
http://www.wavecor.co.uk
Derek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: Coleshill, United Kingdom


Return to Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron