Should I go with 48KHz or 44KHz to submit for Film

[cosmicdolphin]

Honestly?? I don't know why I do it at all (24/96) But just feels wasteful and downright "naughty"

Most of the time you can barely hear the music as it's so far in the background

[Casey H]

Honestly?? I don't know why I do it at all (24/96) But just feels wasteful and downright "naughty"

I hear 96K/98b is all the rage now. And it's easy to remember with both numbers being the same.

[BradleyHagen]

When 24/384 becomes all the rage, I will follow that as well, because I am just that- A blind follower. What is good for the crowd, is good enough for me! If the number is higher? It has to be better quality!

[BradleyHagen]

Honestly?? I don't know why I do it at all (24/96) But just feels wasteful and downright "naughty"

I hear 96K/98b is all the rage now. And it's easy to remember with both numbers being the same.

You know how it feels to light a 100 dollar bill on fire at a strip club?? Well, that is how I feel when I record at 24/96!!! NAUGHTY!!

[AlanHall]

I know that some of the VI libraries I use supply samples at 48k, where others I suspect are 44.1k - the actual specs are hard to find on some of these manufacturer's sites. I'm pretty sure that all VIs render samples at a variable rate (so one sample can be used across a few pitches), so I don't know if the base sample's rate really makes that much of a difference. That said:

I run my DAW at 24bit, 44.1k not because I want to avoid burning $100 bills, but rather because... well, actually I do want to avoid burning cash. I can't afford state-of-the-art monster HW right now, and use a 2012 Mac Pro that doesn't seem to like running at the 10% higher rate 48k demands. I can still bounce at 48k, so that's good enough for me.

If anyone wants to spot me an indefinite loan for a new setup, I'll be happy to enter the 44/48/96/192 discussion. No? Oh, well.

[Casey H]

I know that some of the VI libraries I use supply samples at 48k, where others I suspect are 44.1k - the actual specs are hard to find on some of these manufacturer's sites. I'm pretty sure that all VIs render samples at a variable rate (so one sample can be used across a few pitches), so I don't know if the base sample's rate really makes that much of a difference. That said:

I run my DAW at 24bit, 44.1k not because I want to avoid burning $100 bills, but rather because... well, actually I do want to avoid burning cash. I can't afford state-of-the-art monster HW right now, and use a 2012 Mac Pro that doesn't seem to like running at the 10% higher rate 48k demands. I can still bounce at 48k, so that's good enough for me.

If anyone wants to spot me an indefinite loan for a new setup, I'll be happy to enter the 44/48/96/192 discussion. No? Oh, well.

I would say don't worry about it. One day when you get a new puter, you can change it. Without getting into the dreaded, "Can you hear the difference?" discussion (Please, no!), it will have no impact on your putting out broadcast quality tracks for sync.

Best,
Casey

[AlanHall]

I know that some of the VI libraries I use supply samples at 48k, where others I suspect are 44.1k - the actual specs are hard to find on some of these manufacturer's sites. I'm pretty sure that all VIs render samples at a variable rate (so one sample can be used across a few pitches), so I don't know if the base sample's rate really makes that much of a difference. That said:

I run my DAW at 24bit, 44.1k not because I want to avoid burning $100 bills, but rather because... well, actually I do want to avoid burning cash. I can't afford state-of-the-art monster HW right now, and use a 2012 Mac Pro that doesn't seem to like running at the 10% higher rate 48k demands. I can still bounce at 48k, so that's good enough for me.

If anyone wants to spot me an indefinite loan for a new setup, I'll be happy to enter the 44/48/96/192 discussion. No? Oh, well.

I would say don't worry about it. One day when you get a new puter, you can change it. Without getting into the dreaded, "Can you hear the difference?" discussion (Please, no!), it will have no impact on your putting out broadcast quality tracks for sync.

Best,
Casey

I agree. 48k / 44.1k is less than 10% increase in available frequency range. And at the Nyquist frequencies that are the upper limit for freq reproduction (just over 20kHz), I highly doubt there's enough audio information in music for sync to care about whether anyone can hear it or not

I posted because while I am a gear wh0re and would love - one day - to own more shiny toys, I realize that 'today is not that day'. And I believe that upsampling from 44.1k to 48k does not detrimentally affect the rendered sound. It sounds just like it did at 44.1k, with some inaudible dither added.

[Casey H]

And at the Nyquist frequencies that are the upper limit for freq reproduction...

Ooh, Alan... I love when you talk science nerdy!

[AlanHall]

And at the Nyquist frequencies that are the upper limit for freq reproduction...

Ooh, Alan... I love when you talk science nerdy!

My version of Bradley's 'naughty' is 'nerdy'

[cosmicdolphin]

If anyone wants to spot me an indefinite loan for a new setup, I'll be happy to enter the 44/48/96/192 discussion. No? Oh, well.

I was thinking about this stuff as my DAW has the option to enable 2x upsampling on all my plugins and softsynths. I've never really bothered before but when I looked you can have it just do it when it renders the file if you want.

So I gave it try and in an A/B test there is a small but somewhat noticable improvement in audio quality. It does sound a little cleaner / clearer - a bit more space around the instruments..not so congested in busier sections.

It doesn't add much to the file size so I will keep it switched on.