Julian
August 24th 06, 04:13 PM
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:49:57 +0200, Chel van Gennip
> wrote:
>On our site I have a lot of MP3 files. For these files I use 44.1K as
>samplerate, as some mediaplayers/hardware had problems with 48K
>samplerates. I think by now those problems problems should be gone.
>48K (or multiples) samplerate is the standards for newer media. All
>recordings I have are 48K or multiples. Some hardware is performing
>better at 48K than on 44.1k.
>
>I wonder if there still are compatibility issues, or is it wise to switch
>to 48K samplerate?
Is Serg your son? He's very talented.
I'm not aware of the problem you mention with 48k mp3's.
I don't think it matters much. If your source material is 48 and
higher, downsampling to 44.1 before mp3 encoding shouldn't be audible
even at high mp3 bit rates.
Julian
> wrote:
>On our site I have a lot of MP3 files. For these files I use 44.1K as
>samplerate, as some mediaplayers/hardware had problems with 48K
>samplerates. I think by now those problems problems should be gone.
>48K (or multiples) samplerate is the standards for newer media. All
>recordings I have are 48K or multiples. Some hardware is performing
>better at 48K than on 44.1k.
>
>I wonder if there still are compatibility issues, or is it wise to switch
>to 48K samplerate?
Is Serg your son? He's very talented.
I'm not aware of the problem you mention with 48k mp3's.
I don't think it matters much. If your source material is 48 and
higher, downsampling to 44.1 before mp3 encoding shouldn't be audible
even at high mp3 bit rates.
Julian