19 Nov
2010
19 Nov
'10
12:44 a.m.
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:31:31, Arnold Krille escreveu:
On Thursday 18 November 2010 23:10:03 Fabio wrote:
well I refered to Number 2 as 1 + 2 say diferent things
Number two said that different styles of recording (mic-placement, room-
acoustics and mixing) made a difference, while number one says that there is no
difference between 192kHz (and probably 24bit or 32bit) and 44.1kHz/16bit.
Given the fact that nowadays most consumer soundcards work with 48kHz
internally and re-sample anything else, its save to stay with 48kHz for
recording and online-publishing.
Have fun,
Arnold
yea, your right, didn't read it carefully enough.
anyone knows how to find out internally SR of my card?
Fabio
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:05:27,
você escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:28:04PM -0200, Fabio wrote:
> > Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30, fons(a)kokkinizita.net
escreveu:
> For these tests the authors used
'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
> (mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
> or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
> transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
> emerged from this:
>
> 1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
> reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
> versions.
>
> 2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
> other versions of the same music released on CD.
well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they
heard
On the contrary, the test showed that the listeners could *not* hear
the difference.
Ciao,