26 Jan
2006
26 Jan
'06
3:40 p.m.
Some notes on 96khz:
I tried working exclusively with 96Khz for about a month. The dynamic
range is so extreme that the faintest of sounds are picked up.
"Silence" no longer exists. ANYWHERE. Ladspa plugins like gates don't
go below -70db, and they need to. A plus was I felt free to sell all
my outboard compressors. My analog synths sounded fatter, voice more
robust, but at least some of that was the result of turning my knobs
down from "11" to give me 10DB or more of headroom. (I'd fallen into a
bad habit)
Wow this is fascinating... Can't wait to try it!
I could hear leaves in trees blowing outside
You know reading this I feel like I'm listening to some hoozy meditation
tape, I'm starting to feel all connected to nature and stuff :)
"deader"
Mhm, that's kind of what I was suspecting... Now I know we're not going
to be able to deliver to consumers for some time, but could it be that
192kHz would offer again another boost
Note: I have a good ear (can hear up to 22khz in one ear - compensates
for the other which doesn't go above 4k)
Eeer, diver?
So having hires audio is good for debugging your
studio, and pure
96khz sound sources, but not so hot for development or analog work.
I see, great experience to share, thanks!
The primary reason I remain interested in using it is
to encode down
higher quality surround.
192Khz strikes me as complete overkill, except perhaps
in that instance.
Thanks Mike
Carlo