7 Jul
2004
7 Jul
'04
8:50 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 15:01, Greg Murphy wrote:
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
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. I use decent quality live speakers at
reasonable non ear splitting levels and generally keep them close enough
to maintain a stereo image. Again, I don't want to spur the argument
that "Only my Dog can hear that damn noise!" :)
My only real concern here was with my new box. I figured it should run
this no problemo on the 2.4 kernel with Xruns. I read the other
responses from Jack and co (thanks) and need to take a closer look at
tweaking my box for optimum performance.
R~
My impression is that the more maths an audio
professional knows, the
more
sure the audio professional is that
higher sampling rates is a
bad thing. (unless you are recording sounds that is later going to be downsampled a lot of course)
Perhaps its impossible for us
non-skilled-mathematicians to
understand properly why 96 kHz is a bad thing...
96kHz is not bad, 192kHZ IS bad. 96 pushes side effects of filters in
the A/D/A chain beyond out hearing. However, it's suspected that 192 is
not so good as there isn't sufficient time between samples to allow
components (e.g. caps) to function correctly. I think I've said this
before but read Dan Lavry's paper on the subject at
http://lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
Yes, Dan Lavry does makeand sell ADCs but this subject has been
discussed to death on a number of audio lists and forums frequented by
many eminent engineers. It is the concensus that 96kHZ is a Good Thing
(tm).
Greg
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com