[linux-audio-user] Re: 192kHz
capocasa at gmx.net
Thu Jan 26 14:32:53 EST 2006
> Some notes on 96khz:
> I tried working exclusively with 96Khz for about a month. The dynamic
> range is so extreme that the faintest of sounds are picked up.
> "Silence" no longer exists. ANYWHERE. Ladspa plugins like gates don't
> go below -70db, and they need to. A plus was I felt free to sell all
> my outboard compressors. My analog synths sounded fatter, voice more
> robust, but at least some of that was the result of turning my knobs
> down from "11" to give me 10DB or more of headroom. (I'd fallen into a
> bad habit)
Wow this is fascinating... Can't wait to try it!
> I could hear leaves in trees blowing outside
You know reading this I feel like I'm listening to some hoozy meditation
tape, I'm starting to feel all connected to nature and stuff :)
Mhm, that's kind of what I was suspecting... Now I know we're not going
to be able to deliver to consumers for some time, but could it be that
192kHz would offer again another boost
> Note: I have a good ear (can hear up to 22khz in one ear - compensates
> for the other which doesn't go above 4k)
> So having hires audio is good for debugging your studio, and pure
> 96khz sound sources, but not so hot for development or analog work.
I see, great experience to share, thanks!
> The primary reason I remain interested in using it is to encode down
> higher quality surround.
> 192Khz strikes me as complete overkill, except perhaps in that instance.
More information about the Linux-audio-user