21 Apr
2007
21 Apr
'07
3:04 p.m.
On 4/21/07, Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> wrote:
"Mike Taht" <mike.taht(a)gmail.com> writes:
96khz gives your ears ~2.16x more stereo information.
Now, whether or not the human brain is capable of processing that - or
recording engineers capable of capturing it - I dunno. I will have some
environmental recordings up shortly that, while not recorded using strictly
binaural techniques, sound pretty good.
I've still to find the reason for 192kHz.
Me neither. It's one of those easy marketing sells. I'd rather have better
S/N, longer cables, sweet sounding mics....
There are only three real features of 96khz
recording that I notice:
The only theoretical benefit of 96kHz over 48kHz is that the input
filters on the AD does not need to be so sharp that it affects
frequencies below 24kHz. At least to my knowledge. Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom
Wouldn't this translate to bit depth?.
Yes, 24 bits of audio is much more important than a 96khz sampling rate.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
--
Mike Taht
PostCards From the Bleeding Edge
http://the-edge.blogspot.com