[linux-audio-user] New Asus Ath. XP 2500 Delta 1010LT performance

[Russell Hanaghan]

On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 15:01, Greg Murphy wrote:
> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> > My impression is that the more maths an audio professional knows, the
> > > more
> > sure the audio professional is that higher sampling rates is a
> > bad thing. (unless you are recording sounds that is later going to be
> 
> > downsampled a lot of course)
> 
> > Perhaps its impossible for us non-skilled-mathematicians to
> > understand properly why 96 kHz is a bad thing...
> 
> 96kHz is not bad, 192kHZ IS bad. 96 pushes side effects of filters in
> the A/D/A chain beyond out hearing. However, it's suspected that 192 is
> not so good as there isn't sufficient time between samples to allow
> components (e.g. caps) to function correctly. I think I've said this
> before but read Dan Lavry's paper on the subject at 
> 
> http://lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
> 
> Yes, Dan Lavry does makeand sell ADCs but this subject has been
> discussed to death on a number of audio lists and forums frequented by
> many eminent engineers. It is the concensus that 96kHZ is a Good Thing
> (tm). 

My only, somewhat less than engineering level thoughts were that some of
the fidelity on the reverb and delay tails might be enhanced with a
little additional fidelity. I use decent quality live speakers at
reasonable non ear splitting levels and generally keep them close enough
to maintain a stereo image.  Again, I don't want to spur the argument
that "Only my Dog can hear that damn noise!" :) 

My only real concern here was with my new box. I figured it should run
this no problemo on the 2.4 kernel with Xruns. I read the other
responses from Jack and co (thanks) and need to take a closer look at
tweaking my box for optimum performance.

R~

> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com