23 Nov
2015
23 Nov
'15
5:58 p.m.
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:45:48 -0500
"jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com" <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:07:22 +0100
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
I believe the general advice is for small projects with little going on inside
the box 48k is ideal. If you intend to do a lot of editing, processing and
general effing about go for 96k and down sample the final master.
Don't bother with 192k at all unless your room is on the North wall of the
building and needs extra heating.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
Regarding the sample rate consider to use 48 kHz
usually there's no
advantage to use a higher sampling rate and most of the times a lower
sample rate does cause audible loss.
"The Audio Engineering Society recommends 48 kHz sampling rate for
most applications"
"Most professional audio gear uses 48 kHz sampling, including mixing
consoles, and digital recording devices."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28signal_processing%29
That can be a much valid point. Everything boils down to what can be
distributed easily anyways. Is there a significant difference when
sampling at 192,000 (jack max on this machine) and then having a final
mastering for CD purposes ? Well, there will be more points to work
with, this is certain. Does it make a difference ? Will more
complexities of the guitar playing end up being actually felt, tidbits
that audiophiles can argue about for hours ? Will it bring a somewhat
sense of a richer sound to the listener ? Not sure that it is entirely
mathematics. The notion of psychoacoustics was used in developing the
MP3 format as inherently there's more than math to music. Will this
have an influence on the projects I make - most probably not, although
it is an interesting topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics