Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is ripping at 48khz better than at 44.1khz?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is ripping at 48khz better than at 44.1khz?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I'm currently wondering whether ripping a CD track at 48khz is better than ripping at 44.1khz. Theoretically, the former should be better, right? But I gather that CD tracks themselves are at 44.1khz, so does ripping at 48khz make any difference at all?

The guys at Hydrogenaudio don't seem to have any problems with ripping at 44.1khz, or rather that they don't even seem to consider 48khz as an option at all

Is there anyone who rip their CDs at 48khz, or is it completely needless? Any inputs would be greatly appreciated.
post #2 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwanmeister
I'm currently wondering whether ripping a CD track at 48khz is better than ripping at 44.1khz. Theoretically, the former should be better, right? But I gather that CD tracks themselves are at 44.1khz, so does ripping at 48khz make any difference at all?

The guys at Hydrogenaudio don't seem to have any problems with ripping at 44.1khz, or rather that they don't even seem to consider 48khz as an option at all

Is there anyone who rip their CDs at 48khz, or is it completely needless? Any inputs would be greatly appreciated.
It's actually worse, as sample rate conversion is lossy. Plus, if you use, lossy compression schemes like MP3, they are supposed to get rid of sounds the average human can't hear, which usually is everything above 20000 Hz.
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
Really? So 48khz actually reduces quality? Damn I was somewhat deluded about that then lol. Thanks for the reply adam917
post #4 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwanmeister
Really? So 48khz actually reduces quality? Damn I was somewhat deluded about that then lol. Thanks for the reply adam917
Well, it's not the 48 kHz itself that results in quality loss; it's the resampling to that rate _from 44.1 kHz_ that results in quality loss (lossy conversion). This is part of why I wish 44.1 kHz wasn't the CD sampling rate. Nothing else besides CD & DVD-Audio actually use it. Something like 48 kHz would be perfect.
post #5 of 25
I'd like to find someone who can hear the difference between 44.1 and 44.1 upsampled to 48... good luck!

See ya
Steve
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam917
Well, it's not the 48 kHz itself that results in quality loss; it's the resampling to that rate _from 44.1 kHz_ that results in quality loss (lossy conversion). This is part of why I wish 44.1 kHz wasn't the CD sampling rate. Nothing else besides CD & DVD-Audio actually use it. Something like 48 kHz would be perfect.
I don't understand why 48Khz would be "perfect," what's the likelihood that anyone can hear the difference between 44.1 and 48?

"Plus, if you use, lossy compression schemes like MP3, they are supposed to get rid of sounds the average human can't hear, which usually is everything above 20000 Hz."

How does the sampling rate and frequency work hand in hand?
post #7 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam917
they are supposed to get rid of sounds the average human can't hear, which usually is everything above 20000 Hz.
That is done to 44.1KHz wave files as well (Nyquist theorem) due to distortion at higher frequencies. With 44.1Khz sampling you can see how everything above 22.05Khz would be a square wave at best and therefore useless for most playback. It starts becoming noticable much less than that...

back on topic, you have nothing to gain by ripping it at 48KHz, just stick with it's original 44.1
post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gloco
I don't understand why 48Khz would be "perfect," what's the likelihood that anyone can hear the difference between 44.1 and 48?

I think a lot of people feel 48Khz is "perfect" or much better because they often compare something at 44.1Khz - 16 bit to 48Khz - 24 bit, and in general (IMO) bit depth makes a much bigger difference when compared to sampling frequency. This is partially because increasing bit depth causes exponential improvement where sampling frequency does not. 16 bit sound has 65,536 placement possibilties and 24 bit has 16,777,216 possibilies making a large difference in sound. Anyway...back to work.

Chris
post #9 of 25
I think there is some confusion around here about this 44.1 - 48 kHz thing. This is the sampling frequency. It has nothing to do with the frequencies we hear (which are transmitted by air to our ears). The sampling frequency is the number of samplings per second which the digital coding machine takes so it can digitise the analog sound when it is recorded onto digital media (DAT, CD and computer media in general). As someone before said this is because of Nyquist's theorem which states that for the reproduction of the analog information to be as faithful as possible to the original the digital conversion must have a sampling frequency of AT LEAST 2 times the maximum desired reproductible frequency. If this is not obeyed everything over the respective frequency limit is affected by "alliasing". This means it gets distorted. The "at least" part is very important because the higher the frequency the more faithful the recording. But this gets kinda difficult if sampling frequencies are too high (i forget why but i'll remember )
Anyway.. get a SACD player and you will enjoy 24 bit coding with 96kHz sampling frequency. In a word :"You must upgrade your source and amp!" )
post #10 of 25
There's no point; the file on the CD is at 44.1.
It would be analagous to trying to convert a 128 bit rate mp3 to 224 in an attempt to increase SQ.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellor_19
I think there is some confusion around here about this 44.1 - 48 kHz thing. This is the sampling frequency. It has nothing to do with the frequencies we hear (which are transmitted by air to our ears). The sampling frequency is the number of samplings per second which the digital coding machine takes so it can digitise the analog sound when it is recorded onto digital media (DAT, CD and computer media in general). As someone before said this is because of Nyquist's theorem which states that for the reproduction of the analog information to be as faithful as possible to the original the digital conversion must have a sampling frequency of AT LEAST 2 times the maximum desired reproductible frequency. If this is not obeyed everything over the respective frequency limit is affected by "alliasing". This means it gets distorted. The "at least" part is very important because the higher the frequency the more faithful the recording. But this gets kinda difficult if sampling frequencies are too high (i forget why but i'll remember )
Anyway.. get a SACD player and you will enjoy 24 bit coding with 96kHz sampling frequency. In a word :"You must upgrade your source and amp!" )
DVD-Audio can work at 24-bit 96000 Hz (and even 192000 Hz, in stereo only) too.
post #12 of 25
Can you actually rip higher than the sample rate? I thought it's always at the native sample rate. I've always considered such a conversion a step after.

I think a conversion to 24bit sounds better to me than a 48khz conversion. You could always use your own ears and decide for yourself.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by lan
Can you actually rip higher than the sample rate? I thought it's always at the native sample rate.
you can with iTunes.
post #14 of 25
hehe. Seems iTunes doesn't everything

I'm not confident in iTunes sounds quality though.
post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by lan
hehe. Seems iTunes doesn't everything

I'm not confident in iTunes sounds quality though.
it has perfectly fine sound quality if you use a LAME plug-in or use AAC. *shrug*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is ripping at 48khz better than at 44.1khz?