It would seem as though I was wrong. I found an interesting quote from Bob Katz, a mastering god, who had the following to say about sample rates:
"Usually 48K sounds more "open" to me. And 96K sounds "purer and warmer" while retaining the openness of 48K. I highly recommend 48K over 44.
HOWEVER, yes, I've encountered situations where 44 sounds better than 48! If the material sounds better a little more closed in and less revealing... It all goes back to the choice of compromises and the nature of the original recording. I try to upsample to 96K for any digital processing, so at the end of that chain I get to listen to both the 96 and the 44 and I'd hate to admit it (lose my audiophile license)--- for SOME material, especially the hard rock, the 44.1 reduction takes away some of the ugliness or softens some of the distortion. Most times, though, I terribly miss the 96K.
This is a dilemma, should we use the more open, revealing format only to like the reduction at the end, or get our sound at 48K that we like and hope for the least "degradation" when reduced to 44K? I say, do what works best under the individual circumstances, and get to know your medium's limitations---or even advantages."
I guess I'll be giving 48kHz another try.
|