shouls i run the sample rate at 44100 or 48000

[anaujiram]

should i run the sample rate at 44100 or 48000

iv been searching on the net and on this site and i didnt find any thread about this on the net some people say 44100 is better other say 48000 sound better but take more space other say it dont change anything at 48000 but it take more space my question is wich one should i choose for best sound quality?

 

[CPhoenix]

Higher = "more quality". More samples within the same period of time is always technically better... on paper. But the question is if it's noticeable. Most people do not notice it. I've switched back n forth for a year now. I can't say that I notice the difference in quality. Maybe it's "clearer" by a hair... but nothing I'd be able to pinpoint in a shootout. It could just be my brain.

The reason I was running my DAW at 48khz however is because you get improvements in latency. Just by default... running at a higher sample rate reduces latency. So, the size of the file (which isn't TOO much larger than the 44khz file) was worth it to me. I switched back to 44khz though b/c it made things a little complicated when collabing or w/ adding certain 44khz wav files. Computer has to work a little harder to convert. Wasn't worth the hassle in the end... i just lowered my block size a little.

Also... consider that if you're gonna burn to CD... CD's operate at 44khz lol. So... you'd end up converting... and some argue this may introduce rounding errors. Because of this... the people who want "high quality" may bump up to 88KHz. That... IMHO... is not worth the file size.... unless you have a few TB drives dedicated to only audio.

 

[anaujiram]

thanks for your reply very helpful!

 

[krushing]

Don't see much point in 48Khz these days - it's more like a legacy sample rate from the ADAT tape days (since that's what it used) and it's often used in video work, but just for music production it's not very useful (although someone will probably drop in and claim it sounds "infinitely better").