Is 16 bit/44.1 good enough?
- Thread starter kellyboy
- Start date
SiliconAudioLabs
Active member
Oleg 2 said:
What Oleg said!
("In the grave" HAHA, good one! Oh, happy passover btw.)
ozduc
Well-known member
kellyboy said:
It's definitely good enough but most video NLE's use 16 bit/48khz so you may end up with a lot of headaches in post. If you are using a digital file based recorder, try and match sample rates to whatever editing system you'll be using. Also if you are actually shooting film, you need to be aware of the pulldown requirements for the audio when transferring the film to video for post editing. So if using an NLE at 16 bit/48khz, you would need to record the audio at 48.048 khz
SMuir
Well-known member
kellyboy said:
Yes, but the standard for film and video is 48 kHz 16-bit (24-bit for higher-end film work).
As perviously mentioned, 16-bit 44.1 kHz is the standard used for Audio CDs. Since the vast majority of commercial effects libraries are still released on audio CDs, 16-bit 44.1 kHz material is routinely used in video and feature film mixes even though the mixes themselves typically take place at higher sample rates.
Technically, the difference between the two sample rates has to do with the maximum frequency that can be accurately sampled (the Nyquist frequency, which is one half the sample rate). Therefore, CD audio goes up to 22.05 kHz, whereas film and video top off at 24 kHz. Although the average person's hearing ranges from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, the higher frequencies add harmonic and transient detail that subtly adds to the realism of the sampled audio.
Most NLEs and DAWs will allow you to up-sample 44.1 kHz audio to 48 kHz, allowing you to use CD audio in DV or film projects. If you try to directly import 44.1 kHz audio into a 48 kHz session without correctly converting the sample rate, the audio will be played back at a faster rate (effectively speeding up the sound and increasing the pitch). The effect is pretty subtle, and may escape your notice until you try to synch up double-system audio.
All digital recorders widely used for film and video work will support 48 kHz, so I'm curious what recorder you have your eye on. Marantz has a portable CD recorder, but their solid-state recorders are better suited to video work (not to mention being more reasonably priced). Laptop and computer sound cards will generally provide 48 kHz recording, although the preamplifiers tend to make them ill-suited to professional recording (not to mention the mechanical noise of the computer and the relative instability of most consumer recording software). Some portable music recorders (eg. minidisc, MP3, Creative Nomad) can be used as double-system recorders, but low quality preamps (not to mention A/D converters and headphone amps) tend to make them better suited to emergency backup recording tasks rather than primary double-system recorders. There's a whole whack of great little entry-level solid state recorders on the market (the Zoom H4 in particular has been getting rave reviews).
SMuir said:
I disagree. As people can not hear frequencies above 20kHz (or even 16kHz for most of us) higher frequencies do not add anything to the signal. If it is not heard it is not there. Period.
To the question: 44.1 kHz sample rate is plenty good enough for everything* and easily converted to 48kHz for post production.
-------
* many tests have been done with 16/44.1 signals and never have the test subjects been able in a double blind tests differentiate between line and 16/44.1 or between 24/96 and 16/44.1. When the limits of human hearing is reached it is futile to add more resolution.
I am not talking about the benefits of 24 bit bit depths or slowing down samples for effects, just normal delivery.
SMuir
Well-known member
I'm afraid that this is a patently false statement. The 20Hz-20kHz range is typical of healthy human hearing, it is by no means a factory-set standard shared by all humans.Petrus said:
Moreover, statistics gathered using pure-tone frequency tests with audiometers have proven to be a great over-simplification of sound perception. The human brain is able to perceive the presence of harmonic detail well above the ear's ability to detect high frequencies through the interraction of innaudable tones on audible ones. That is partly why well recorded 96kHz audio has a demonstrably more natural and transparent feel.
It is, perhaps, more telling to refer to the fact that most microphones and playback systems will struggle with sounds above 20kHz.
Okay, so putting aside the other arguments, it really depends on what type of work you're doing. If you're working on true film projects, are you going to do sync telecine or MOS telecine. If sync, then find out of the telecine house can handle 44.1. There have been discussions lately on Jeff's site about the difficulties in handling 48, so I would hate to think what would happen if you sent them 44.1.
Phil
Phil
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
A little clarity. 20 - 20 hearing is not what the average person hears it's what young ears that have no damage should be able to hear. It's not a brick wall at either end. This argument went on endlessly with the 44.1 VS 48 debate a while back. The bottom line is that some humans hear better than 20-20. If you have ever been to a rock concert you don't hear 20-20. Hearing damage doesn't "heal" though sever temporary effects can get better once some of those little hairs break off they don't grow back. The average adult maie has a roll off at about 12K and usually can't hear much of anything above 18K. Women and children hear much higher, as a rule.
Second Dolby Digital is 44.1, so most of the "digital" soundtracks you have heard are at 44.1 not 48. Most editors sound libraries (up to a few years ago) were in 44.1, because other wise you had to convert. Software conversion used to take a long time and nobody was too fond of the hardware converters so most folks tried to stay at 44.1. That has all changed for two reasons. First DV is at 48 (one reason you should probably be at 48). The second is 24 does sound better than 16 and 44.1/24 never got very popular so most people moved from 44.1/16 to 48/16. So 48 has become the new standard. Also conversion has become fast and in the background so libraries are mixed sample rates and nobody really cares. Another factor is size. In the mid late 90's 2 gig SCSI drives were the standard. The space required to move from 44.1 to 48 was significant, it isn't any more.
I have met some folks that say they can hear the difference between 44.1 and 48, not many and I have never really bought it. There is some perceptional difference that you get with higher sample rates. I can feel the difference with 96k on the right things, but it's not exactly "hearing" it, and it's way too subtle to waste the space on. From 44.1 to 48 you hardly get any new harmonic content and 99.999% of the folks who will see any movie won't be hearing any fundamental frequencies up there.
Short answer is yes it will sound fine. If you have the option to shoot 24 bit, it's worth it. If your working in DV stay with 48, 44.1 is not a supported standard for DV.
Second Dolby Digital is 44.1, so most of the "digital" soundtracks you have heard are at 44.1 not 48. Most editors sound libraries (up to a few years ago) were in 44.1, because other wise you had to convert. Software conversion used to take a long time and nobody was too fond of the hardware converters so most folks tried to stay at 44.1. That has all changed for two reasons. First DV is at 48 (one reason you should probably be at 48). The second is 24 does sound better than 16 and 44.1/24 never got very popular so most people moved from 44.1/16 to 48/16. So 48 has become the new standard. Also conversion has become fast and in the background so libraries are mixed sample rates and nobody really cares. Another factor is size. In the mid late 90's 2 gig SCSI drives were the standard. The space required to move from 44.1 to 48 was significant, it isn't any more.
I have met some folks that say they can hear the difference between 44.1 and 48, not many and I have never really bought it. There is some perceptional difference that you get with higher sample rates. I can feel the difference with 96k on the right things, but it's not exactly "hearing" it, and it's way too subtle to waste the space on. From 44.1 to 48 you hardly get any new harmonic content and 99.999% of the folks who will see any movie won't be hearing any fundamental frequencies up there.
Short answer is yes it will sound fine. If you have the option to shoot 24 bit, it's worth it. If your working in DV stay with 48, 44.1 is not a supported standard for DV.