{"id":600,"date":"1999-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-06T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sweetwater.com\/sweetcare\/?p=600"},"modified":"2007-04-27T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-04-27T00:00:00","slug":"441-versus-48k","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/www.sweetwater.com\/sweetcare\/articles\/441-versus-48k\/","title":{"rendered":"44.1 versus 48k"},"content":{"rendered":"

The old 44.1\/48k debate again. “I really would like to know how much different recording at 44.1 kHz versus 48 kHz would sound with a Roland VS880. Of course finally I will mix down at 44.1 kHz to DAT, but my mixer is analog so I don’t HAVE to record at 44.1. Will it be better to use 48 kHz or it will not sound much different?” In the grand scheme of things 48 kHz recording really doesn’t sound much different from 44.1 kHz. You’re basically getting an extra 2 kHz of frequency response on the top end. Now the difference between 10 kHz and 12 kHz is meaningful, but 20 kHz and 22 kHz is, well… lets just say it’s not going to make or break your recording. Actually the difference between 10 kHz and 12 kHz probably wouldn’t either, but that’s another TTOTD.The potential disadvantage of 48 kHz recording is it will require more hard disk space. If hard disk space is not a concern for you then we say, why not? Go ahead and take the extra 2 kHz. Some would argue that you could achieve overall better sound quality by recording at 44.1 and mixing out of the VS-880 digitally to the DAT, which avoids extra D\/A and A\/D conversions. There is some merit to trying this if you can, but otherwise the difference between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz just isn’t going to be noticeable with the equipment you have.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","categories":[],"tags":[],"storecat":[],"itemids":[],"manufacturers":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n