[LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: linux audio users <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Sunday, January 6, 2013 - 11:54 am

>From earlier talk about sample rates, it appears that for recording audio,
48k is better than 44.1. Having decided that, what other issues cross my
path if I default my audio rate to 48k? All of my softsynths seem to
work... I do wonder about samplers though. Are the samples mostly in 44.1k
if they come on a CD? Would that make them off-key when used? Would they
get rate-changed on the fly? Would that use more CPU? (questions,
questions, questions)

It does not seem to affect my desktop, flash, ogg, mp3, ac3 etc. all
playback fine. Pulse seems to be doing more work though at least when
playing a CD. I'm pushing it pretty hard though, I have it bridged to
jackdbus with -p64 so Pulse has to keep up.

I'm just wondering why Ubuntu (which presumably means Debian too),
qjackctl, Pulse and lots of other audio apps all seem to default to 44.1k.

Speaking as one of the devs for the Ubuntu Studio distro, I'm wondering
how much trouble I'm going to get for asking for 48k default sample rate
in audio.

--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Sun Jan 6, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Ralph Bluecoat, (Mon Jan 7, 1:56 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 4:37 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Jan 7, 10:03 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Alf Haakon Lund, (Mon Jan 7, 5:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 9:34 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, David Olofson, (Sun Jan 6, 11:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 3:16 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Neil, (Sun Jan 6, 8:18 pm)