7 Dec
2009
7 Dec
'09
7:47 p.m.
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:06:23PM +0100, Jens M
Andreasen wrote:
i thought the same, until i happened upon the website of a bat fancier
who is recording his favourite animals with a pimped condenser mic with
extended hf response, and then either uses the sonographic "voiceprints"
to differentiate between species, or pitch-shifts the bat sounds into
the audible range. quite fascinating.
and it makes me think of david monacchi, that italian prof who played
his rainforest archival recordings at the ambi symposium in graz - for
those applications, it might actually make sense (iff you can get that
extended hf out of your signal chain, without excessive radio
interference - a rainforest should be a relatively rf-friendly
environment, if your colleagues keep their mobiles off...)
but yes, for human baseband use, with standard equipment (especially as
a selling proposal in the consumer market), 192kHz remains utter hogwash...
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 20:41 +0100, Karl Hammar
wrote:
But take into account that 192 kHz is the same
type of marketing scam as gold-plated optical
connectors. In other words completely useless. So, 24bit, 48/96kHz is the spec. to aim at?
If you happen to sit on a warehouse full of them, otherwise 192kHz is
priced the same these days.