Falling under the category of, “is more always better,” inSync reader Daniel G asks:
“I’ve got a TASCAM D-38 and I have yet to find anyone who can really explain the practical difference between recording at 44k versus 48k. Theoretically, one would want to use the higher format, but what are the real considerations for choosing one over the other?”
The “practical” difference is that material recorded at 48k can have a slightly higher frequency response. Obviously, that’s a good thing. The reason very few people record at this rate is because audio CD’s are made at 44.1k. The only way to get digital audio from 48k to 44.1k is to either rerecord it, change the sample rate, or perform what is known as sample rate conversion. Rerecording material that has already been mastered is not such a fun idea because you must go through another A/D and D/A conversion process. Why not just record it at 44.1 in the first place? Simply changing the sample rate will change the speed (and thus pitch) of the audio, and sample rate conversion has historically been wrought with sonic problems. One is taking 48,000 bytes of information and throwing away 3900 of them per second to get down to 44.1. This “can” be done with minimal side effects, but in practice the process has sometimes lead to audio that is lower in overall subjective quality than a rerecorded version.
Technology marches on, however, and there is growing sentiment in the audio community that 44.1k just doesn’t hack it. We are starting to see more and more recorders that record at 88.2 or 96k, and technology that can bring higher sample rates back down to 44.1k with minimal degradation. Further, with the advent of DVD and other modern delivery formats the concept of higher sampling frequencies is starting to be explored at the consumer level again. If things change at the consumer level, they will change for everyone else very quickly.