I am just gonna leave it here

 

I use both 48khz and 96khz, anything beyond 96khz I couldn't tell the difference.

 

Well, certain plugins do act differently on 96k, and combined effort kind adds up.
What i find on 44.1 vs 96k is that i loose the midrange focus on 96k, but i get wider image overall.

 

I love how careful he is when talking about this, like he knows he's about to get bombarded with reasons of why he's right or wrong, death threats, a cult will be started somewhere, reality will collapse on itself, and the discussion will eventually find it's way to which DAW sounds the best.

Anyway, just to clarify the title, he says 44.1 is okay, 48 is shit.

 

I'm just digging a trench for no apparent reason... I just feel like it after seeing the title...

 

this is some really terrible reasoning.

let's seem him do a proper double blind test and go from there.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2022

I've had the same experience before, where the audio in 48k sounded harsh. i thought it was a Studio One problem but ig not

here's the post link https://audiosex.pro/threads/48khz-sounds-harsh-when-exported-with-studio-one.55716/

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2022

What you have to know: MCAA... RCIA... RFBI? whatever this American audio-p*rate-copies-hunters organization is, have forbidden the use of 44.1 in non-pro soundcards, to prevent direct 1:1 copy of audio CDs, for example:

With a cheap soundcard, even if it's just a little D/A chip or a codec totally integrated into your device, when you read a 44.1 source, it is systematically converted to 48 khz before being played or recorded. This way, manufacturers comply with the rules of 'crappyrights' holders, who are, as you all know, very mean, mad, angry and hungry.

But this way, the sound is shitty like hell, I remember than it was far worse with the old computers, because this - real-time! - conversion takes a lot of CPU and adds latency, all that for nothing... Situation have positively evolved today with modern CPUs...

I think it's the same copyrights reasons why video and cinema industry have chosen at first 48 khz (now: 96 khz for broadcast, and up to 192 khz for Blurays, thank gosh!) for their digital soundtracks.

And I remember this because I was 18 when the firsts IBM PCs was released, was there when the first CD-Rom Player and the first soundblaster was born, with all these shitty limitations I didn't understand...

But once, in the 80's, during a reunion with the Society of Authors, Composers and music Editors (SACEM, name of a copyrights handler's society), a studio tech guy I knew told me about this limitation, imposed to the world by the American society of audio industry... Or something like that... Can't remember their f*cking name...

My advice: 48khz have no interest compared to 44.1, there's no quality improvement, use it only for YT videos, but for serious video or movie work: use 96 khz, or 192 khz if you wanna make a Bluray. (In Classical Music for example, engineers often opt to record big orchestras this way, and some labels release regularly special BR-Audio editions of their prominent Artists).

 

Last edited: Oct 24, 2022

I think people are more used to 44.1 khz as it was the first most popular format(CD formats were 44.1khz) before all these other sample rates started coming out. CD format was probably the only consumer format back then until DVD's started coming out. Then Blu-Ray disc's came out with a much higher sample rate.

I'm talking about consumer products and not recording formats because 10 years ago, the only ones who had access to 96khz were the high end studios.

 

It's because most plugins are not compatible or optimized to use in higher sample rates. the newest plugins that are coming out might support higher sample rate but most plugins that we use doesn't

 

Actually most plugins are optimized for 96 deliberately or not. Many EQs cramp at 44.1 and 48, but cramping by its nature doesn't occur on anything higher. So these EQs will definitely sound different. There are no plugins that wouldn't work at 96 but there may be few that don't work correctly at 192.

Acustica Audio plugins, wheter Acqua or Nebula, generally work best at 96 and that's also the highest samplerate for them except for some old Henry Olonga libraries that support also 192.

 

Dude this is complete BS..
If home computers couldn't record at 44khz is not because of a Conspiracy, but Technical limitations..

A computer is very versatile sure,
but it took a while to make them be as Powerful as they needed to be, to make them do what Dedicated Pro Audio Hardware was doing..

There may have been earlier ones, but for instance:
SoundBlaster 16 came in 1992 and was capable of recording at 44.1Khz (stereo) ..


-The auto-48khz conversion is also not true..
Back then not many soundcards could manage 48Khz,
in fact the first one I can recall doing it was SB PCI/Live! and they came out round 1997,
just like the infamous AC97 "codec"..

So how do you want old cards to auto-resample to 48Khz if they couldn't even Play it??


-If 48Khz was chosen for Video is for compatibility reasons..
It's easily divisible by 24, 25, 30 and for interlaced television 50 or 60; so it's compatible with both PAL and NTSC

Besides there's all the regular reasons for it,
like to avoid Aliasing and other audible artifacts that emerge from processing around nyquist, etc etc..

But 44Khz vs 48Khz (or more) is an Ages-old topic that's been discussed a megabazillion times,
so yeah I'm not going to get on that, not my battle..

There's surely great and fruitful discussions on the topic in this, and many other Forums

 

Last edited: Oct 25, 2022

You just get less aliasing and maybe more highs.
This, or you're using really crappy plugins. This should not happen.

 

Sometimes I wish there was a funny rating button on youtube as well.

 

It falls down on one part. If you downsample a 48Khz file to 44.1Khz will it take the harshness out of the 48Khz he staunchly believes it has?
- Assuming you agree with what he says that is.
Upsampling a 22Khz file to 44.1Khz won't do it either. It still keeps the data in the same place and fills the gap with zeros as well as making a bigger file.

 

Those are not due to the sample rate but due to psychological effect of thinking about it.

 

Please explain exactly what "cramping" is.

 

Someone should send this to Dan Worrall.

 

To be honest, I always thought "cramping" applied to EQ's, generally poorly made ones?

 

Digital bell-shaped filter's rapid falloff to unity at nyquist.