6 Feb
2006
6 Feb
'06
1 a.m.
On 1/26/06, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 23:34 +1100, Loki Davison
wrote:
The latest issue of TapeOp (issue #51) has an interview with one of
the developers of the Apogee units in the "Behind the Gear" section
that addresses this question quite well. It's a very good read. To
summarize the main points are:
1) High sampling rates are basically a waste EXCEPT for the fact that
it improves the aliasing of filters (as Paul noted) and offers better
quality of DSP processing.
2) 24 bit offers excellent dynamic range, but anything beyond that is
silly since it would far exceed the dynamic range of the human ear.
3) an excellent clock (like Big Ben or M-Clock) will improve your
sound quality more than anything.
The section on the unique type of dithering he uses was interesting as well.
-Reuben
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