8 Jul
2004
8 Jul
'04
5:30 a.m.
Oa , Jul 07, 2004 at 03:40:39PM -0700, Russell Hanaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 15:01, Greg Murphy wrote:
That's a plausible argument for more bits, but not for faster sampling.
Somebody mentioned anti-aliasing filters: That's where the benefit
lies. When you go from from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling rate, the gap
between passband and stopband for your antialiasing filters goes up
from 8kHz to 56kHz (assuming a 20kHz audio band) so you can make much
better filters: flatter response to 20kHz, less phase error in that
range, less overshoot on transients, much smoother clipping if you ever
go over range on the A-D, and less interference from spurious HF signals
appearing at the input.
--
Anahata
anahata(a)treewind.co.uk Tel: 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk Mob: 07976 263827
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.