3 ms·
48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates - and besides it’s the standard for audio alongside video
by timc3 3y ago
48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates - and besides it’s the standard for audio alongside video so you might as well use it for everything.
So yes, for that reason alone you need more.
- kuschku 3y agoAnd if you'll edit, remix, and slow the audio down, you might want 96kHz or 192kHz, sure. But for the final delivery, there's no need to ever go beyond 48kHz at 24-bit.
- haspok 3y agoWhy do you keep repeating 24 bits? It is way too much, even at 16 bits the dynamic range is far more than what you can reasonably hear (unless you want to damage your ears!) - especially if you are listening in a real world environment, and not in a completely silent room... Vinyl has a significantly worse dynamic range, yet it is loved by hi-end fans, sometimes even preferred to CD! 24 bits is useful for mixing various sources, but otherwise it is a waste of space.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kuschku 3y agoYou're absolutely right. Personally, my two most used playback setups cap out at 44.1kHz and 16-bit and that's good enough.
- dehrmann 3y ago> 48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates Is the half sample per frame at 44,100 Hz and 24 fps really an issue? DVDs support 48kHz, but they only support 25 fps and 29.97 fps. You're going to run into so much NTSC content that I'm not sure even divisibility is a thing.