[linux-audio-user] Re: 192kHz
capocasa at gmx.net
Thu Jan 26 14:28:08 EST 2006
> It's a controversial issue, so be prepared to encounter many different
>From a practical standpoint, I believe that 192 is only rarely needed.
> 96 should be just as good. It is not likely that the situation is going
> to change in the near future.
So you're talking about a possible switch from consumer equipment to
> You need extremely high-quality (and extremely expensive) components in
> your audio chain to exploit the difference between 192 and 96. You also
> need very good mixing and mastering skills in order to stay at the top
> of the quality ladder.
Yeah... Law of diminishing returns at work? As for the mastering I'm
wondering if it's worth it to get really good at it myself or if that's
a lot like learning another musical instrument and best left to the
pros. (Not meaning people who band together in 'professional
organizations' but people who do it a lot :)
> I would be much more worried about the bit depth - use 24bit instead of
> 16 whenever possible throughout the processing chain.
I would assume using 32bit is similar in how much 'bang for the buck'
you get than using 192 kHz?
Thanks a lot for sharing, Florin, appreciate your insights and
More information about the Linux-audio-user