Re: [linux-audio-user] 44.1, 48 or 96?

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 20:32 -0500, Reuben Martin wrote:
> > I am looking for some engineering know-how and advice. Should I track at
> > 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz or 96 kHz?

I had just another thought...

In my last post, I suggested that you capture and process your work at
88.2, but it occurred to me that you're original question was more about
comparing lower and higher sample rates. Your friend who suggested that
you work directly at 44.1 may have a point, but it really depends on the
quality of gear you'll have access to.

Working at a higher sample rate is usually a good idea for several
reasons. First, cheaper converters (< $1,500) generally sound better at
higher sample rates due to extra filtering that goes on to reduce
artifacts. (Note: this is not the case for top quality "audiophile"
gear.)

Secondly, if you're planning to send your mixes to a mastering house,
then work at the highest sampling rate you possibly can and let them do
the conversion. Believe it or not, many of the ultra-high end mastering
studios bounce their final product to 1/2 inch two-track analog tape so
they can recapture it a final time at 44.1. If the digital gear is top
of the line and the tape machines are in great shape, this is probably
the highest fidelity down-sampling conversion process on the planet.

So the real question is this: what are you planning to do with your
final product?

Greg

www.steeprockmedia.com
Received on Mon Sep 12 16:15:08 2005