What's new

Why is 44.1kHz still the standard for music ?

In my youth the first investment of teenagers after owning a bicycle was a good hifi stereo system. It was common to work in holidays to afford one. This times are gone.

Today the kids listen even to bass heavy hip hop on their phones. All of them.

I often make playbacks for live singers, balletts, travesty show guys etc. When I send them playbacks 95% of them listen to it exclusively on laptop speakers, iPads or phones. They don't own something else. Same for "pro's" in advertising agencies and even film production companies. They never hear anything below 100Hz and then discuss about the mix. People performing music on stage and the best sound system they own is in their car.

For most 'music lovers' today the Windows 3.0 media player would be enough.
 
Last edited:
Sidenote: 24 bit AD/DA conversion (at least) and 32 bit FP DAW environment is mandatory, of course.
Of course. ;)

Today the kids listen even to bass heavy hip hop on their phones. All of them.
I know... Today's youth is so perverted !
People performing music on stage and the best sound system they own is in their car.
And car stereos are so built-in that they've become difficult to customize. So, ok, the basic built-in setup is better than what you got in the 80s or 90s, but nobody has a really good custom car stereo anymore. Everything is average.
For most 'music lovers' today the Windows 3.0 media player would be enough.
You're being too kind.

In conclusion: We mix for posterity. :P

(Note: my GF makes me let go of my sonic demands in everyday life, and in return I teach her to not tolerate mediocre sound. So we meet somewhere in the middle. Yesterday it was her who asked me to plug the laptop into at least a Bose. I take it as a small victory ;))
 
Last edited:
Kids today...

Ok, it's hackneyed to have a go at young people, but my anecdotal investigation suggests that they do listen to music through the most appalling playback systems. Half the time it's through the iPhone speaker itself. Not some external thing, the actual built-in iPhone speaker that can't be larger than, what, a dime?
 
Last edited:
Ok, it's hackneyed to have a go at young people, but my anecdotal investigation suggests that they do listen to music through the most appalling playback systems. Half the time it's through the iPhone speaker itself. Not some external thing, the actual built-in iPhone.
I know. Everything sounds like mosquito buzz. When I go to friends' place who listen to music like that, I say either you plug in at least small speakers, or you stop the music, or I go. Fortunately all my friends aren't this tasteless, even among the younger ones ! Some like real sound. (I wouldn't say good, but... real, at least.)

They certainly wouldn't care about sampling rate anyway :laugh:
 
Well... If the answers I got here are any indication... Sampling rates don't matter so much.

I always work at 48k (when I'm not sampling for 96k libraries), but all my friends record at 44.1, so it can be a minor problem when sharing sessions - or no problem at all depending on the software they use. But when sharing back and forth that's a lot of conversions. I tried to convince them to go for 48k but apparently I'm the one who should yield to the majority.

I just wanted to try and determine "who's right" ... But apparently the answer is "who cares?". I was somehow expecting the topic to be more controversial. But ok, I can work with who cares :grin:
 
Last edited:
Are you sure about this ?
https://artsites.ucsc.edu/ems/music/equipment/digital_recorders/Digital_Recorders.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Stationary_Head

At which frequency do you produce music ? (Me, about an album per year ;))

Yes, I am quite sure, having been there. I could write a novel, but it won't matter. This I've learned about the internet Tower of Babel.

To answer your question directly, I have used 24/88.2 for a number of years....until recently, a local mastering engineer pointed out that while 96khz provides no direct value in the conversation process, that it DOES in delivery--because consumer playback always halves (where it can't play it natively)....and as anyone who's done this for any time will tell you: 48 is "more better" than 44 than 88 is to 48.

It's not, IME, exaggerated. It's misunderstood. People who expect HD to be some revelatory "now it sounds amazing", will find it exaggerated. People who value the fidelity to their ANALOG input, will find it indispensable.
 
But, to clarify--that's is not "the standard", what I use. 48khz was the standard my whole "coming up" in the 90s. The argument between "HD or not" references 48 vs HD in PRODUCTION....and 44 vs HD in delivery--different jobs and different weights of "need". Don't conflate them.

CD was ALWAYS a lossy format.
 
But when sharing back and forth that's a lot of conversions.
This I don't get. I work in any SR a production has been started with - 44.1, 48, 96, you name it. No resampling involved. Why would you do that ...? (... I'm asking out of real interest, not because I think that I'm right and you're wrong.)
 
I always work at 48k (when I'm not sampling for 96k libraries), but all my friends record at 44.1

So What Should You Use?

The delivery format for a lot of media music is 48k, so a lot work at that rate.* However, many use 96k to record live players, even if the delivery is 48k. Even if the producer/sound guys on smaller budget projects are willing to accept 96k, one never knows what they do on the dub stage....the minute your back is turned......

That said, a lot of sample libraries are recorded at 44.1 or (sometimes) 48, so then you have to ask, "is there a benefit to recording lower-sample-rate samples at 96k?" Most knowledgeable people argue that recording 44.1k samples at 96k simply takes up more disk space and adds nothing except, depending on your specific rig, some potential benefit for some plugins and effects.

If you are recording a live orchestra (or anything live), that's another matter. The standard recording sample rate for live players is (generally) 96k, irrespective of delivery specs, but not always and not for every project. Some people use 192k but I've seen arguments that 96 is sufficient for human ears.

Does Anyone Hear on Their Crappy Speakers?

As far as your engineer's faith in 96k, @JamieLang , I think the answer is "it depends." If you're in a mastering or other high-end playback room that's well constructed, with good gear, sample rate is important.

However, plenty of consumer gear plays back at 44.1 and besides, in many/most cases it doesn't matter because their speakers/connectors/D/A converters and speakers furnish such feeble audio quality to start with.

I am stunned at how many music consumers -- avid, enthusiastic ones, who play music constantly -- do so through horrible speakers / headphones / bluetooth devices.

Accordingly, because of the shockingly inferior equipment most use to consume music, while acknowledging that there is an important debate about all this, not many can hear the difference even between 96 and 44.1. Far fewer -- vanishingly few, actually -- can hear the difference on their systems between 48 and 44.1.

-----------
* One of my rather successful pals (pretty well known) uses 44.1 to compose if he's using samples because the majority of his libraries are recorded at 44.1. He thinks it's a mistake to work at 48k. Just for what it's worth.
 
This I don't get. I work in any SR a production has been started with - 44.1, 48, 96, you name it. No resampling involved. Why would you do that ...? (... I'm asking out of real interest, not because I think that I'm right and you're wrong.)
You are right. I got carried away. Conversions only happen at export/render/bounce or freezes.
 
I agree with everything @JohnG wrote.

I work at 48 locked and loaded. That said, I’d love to bump that up to 96k, since the few times I did, I hear the benefits when the final is crunched down to mp3.

But maybe this is all just personal;)

Edit

Unless you write in the key of ‘D’, in which case, it’s gonna just sound better at 44.1 :) especially if it’s the LSO
 
Unless you write in the key of ‘D’, in which case, it’s gonna just sound better at 44.1 :) especially if it’s the LSO
I know explaining jokes can make them fall flat, but would you please indulge me, for my education?
 
I know explaining jokes can make them fall flat, but would you please indulge me, for my education?

***sigh***

Bad joke on my part.

So I just made the assumption that John was referring to a certain composer who writes regularly in the key of D. This certain individual sampled his own orchestra while sampling was in it’s infancy, hence the 44.1 (and no real good reason to change that)

carry on >>>
 
Top Bottom