4 Apr
2009
4 Apr
'09
7:36 p.m.
Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
On 4 April 2009 at 23:07, Julien Claassen
<julien(a)c-lab.de> wrote:
Makes sense, Kevin. I guess it's a dynamic range vs. resolution issue.
Interesting questions Julien. Be sure to post your discoveries and
solutions. Sorry I don't have any advice or experience to help.
Frank
Does it make much difference if you record in
48kHz or 96kHz
if you finally get down to 44.1kHz output for the public? I
mean realistically, not just in theory viewed on some analyzer.
I've read a few things in "Recording" magazine over the last few
years which indicate that bit depth is much more important than bit
rate when it comes to compression. If you start with 16-bit audio,
then compress it, you'll end up with the signal compressed to less
than 16-bits, and then you'll add noise to fill up the remaining
bits. They recommend going with more bits. I record at 24-bits.
I don't see any usefulness in recording at a higher bit rate, when my
target is 44.1kHz. Those same articles didn't say higher bit rates
were bad. But, they did say that extra bits are much better than
faster bits, at least when it comes to compression issues.
Hope that helps....
--
Kevin