26 Jan
2006
26 Jan
'06
3:27 p.m.
It's a controversial issue, so be prepared to
encounter many different
opinions.
Yeah!
From a practical standpoint, I believe that 192 is only
rarely needed.
96 should be just as good. It is not likely that the situation is going
to change in the near future.
So you're talking about a possible switch from consumer equipment to
higher bitdepths/frequencies?
You need extremely high-quality (and extremely
expensive) components in
your audio chain to exploit the difference between 192 and 96. You also
need very good mixing and mastering skills in order to stay at the top
of the quality ladder.
Yeah... Law of diminishing returns at work? As for the mastering I'm
wondering if it's worth it to get really good at it myself or if that's
a lot like learning another musical instrument and best left to the
pros. (Not meaning people who band together in 'professional
organizations' but people who do it a lot :)
I would be much more worried about the bit depth - use
24bit instead of
16 whenever possible throughout the processing chain.
I would assume using 32bit is similar in how much 'bang for the buck'
you get than using 192 kHz?
Thanks a lot for sharing, Florin, appreciate your insights and
differentiated response!
Carlo