23 Jan
2003
23 Jan
'03
4:15 p.m.
Atte André Jensen wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:23:55 +0100
"Roel de Wit" <roel(a)utopiasd.com> wrote:
Another thing that makes 96k attractive to me, is the possibility
of capturing a sound that actually has frequencies up toward 40,000Hz,
(Have to be some mic!) and then dropping the speed of the sound down
and 8ve or two, retaining brilliance that is usually lost by slowing
down a sound.
Try to explain to me what the use is of 96 Khz
samples ? It's just
marketing nothing more.. 48 Khz makes it possible to represent up to
24 Khz of sampled frequencies, far about what you can hear.
Ok, I'll have a go :-)
If you sample at 48Khz you need to filter out everything above 24Khz in
order to avoid alias noise. First of all this is not *really* possibkle,
filters don't block thay damp. Secondly a filter steep enough to let
ninimal amounts of energy through above 24Khz will be distorting the
upper part of the frequency range.Now if you sample at 96Khz the story
is the same, but not you have an extra octave to filter smoothly.
Another part of the story is that although a 48Khz sample can represent
frequencies upto 24Khz, the representation of the higher frequencies not
accurately describing the intensity.