Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Resampling 88.2 to 44.1 or 96 to 44.1

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
April 24, 2005 12:51:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Would it be better to record at 24/96 and mixdown to 44.1 16 bit or to
keep the math simple and record at 88.2. TIA -------LB

More about : resampling

Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:06:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

loopy <default@myfault.com> wrote:
>Would it be better to record at 24/96 and mixdown to 44.1 16 bit or to
>keep the math simple and record at 88.2. TIA -------LB

Why not just record at 44.1 and save some media?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:41:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"loopy" <default@myfault.com> wrote:
>
> Would it be better to record at 24/96 and mixdown to 44.1 16 bit or
> to keep the math simple and record at 88.2. TIA -------LB


Try both and see if one sounds better. I doubt you'll notice any
difference at all though.

Resampling is resampling, whether it's from a direct multiple value or
not doesn't matter.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Related resources
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:45:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "loopy" <default@myfault.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would it be better to record at 24/96 and mixdown to 44.1 16 bit or
>> to keep the math simple and record at 88.2. TIA -------LB

I'm still stuck in the mud with, If you;re not workign with top-drawer
stuff, Keep IT Simple:
Digital Release format determines working format...

88 goes to 44
96 goes to 48

Only place 96 makes sense if that¹s the decisaion tree is for TV/film
stuff with a 48k track format

What the hecks the diff between 88 and 96 anyway?
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:12:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BE913774.6550%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>
>> "loopy" <default@myfault.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it be better to record at 24/96 and mixdown to 44.1 16 bit or
>>> to keep the math simple and record at 88.2. TIA -------LB
>
> I'm still stuck in the mud with, If you;re not workign with top-drawer
> stuff, Keep IT Simple:
> Digital Release format determines working format...
>
> 88 goes to 44
> 96 goes to 48
>
> Only place 96 makes sense if that¹s the decisaion tree is for TV/film
> stuff with a 48k track format
>
> What the hecks the diff between 88 and 96 anyway?
>

It's 8k 'better'. ;-)

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
!