26 Jan
2006
26 Jan
'06
10:32 a.m.
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 23:34 +1100, Loki Davison wrote:
On 1/26/06, Carlo Capocasa <capocasa(a)gmx.net>
wrote:
although i agree about 192, 96 does have one distinct benefit. the
higher the SR, the easier it is to make a really nice brickwall filter
that sits in front of the A/D converters to prevent aliasing. the
transition from the 40,000 range to the 90,000 range for SR makes a lot
of difference to the qualities of this filter, and i believe that this
can have a detectable (i.e. double blind detectable) effort on tonal
quality *in ideal listening circumstances*. whether this makes any
difference in the contexts in which 99% of the population hears your
work .... seems doubtful.
and once again, please recall that the most of greatest recordings of
the last 50 years were almost done on technology whose "sound quality"
would generally be laughed at today.
--p
Hi,
I've been planning to buy an RME MultiFace sound adapter for quite some
time now, but now I see all these 192kHz devices on the market.
My question, how useful is 192kHz for practical purposes? How quickly is
that likely to change? I'd really appreciate some advice here, thank you.
Carlo
Similar to 96 khz. Totally useless. What do you think the frequency