20 Jun
2004
20 Jun
'04
2:15 a.m.
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 22:55, RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote:
On 19-Jun-2004 Vescovi Christophe wrote:
} RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net a crit :
} > :} I *need* those sounds.
} Sorry but this is a bad example .....
} This example has nothing to do with the sample rate of the sample
} (sound) but with the method used to implement a digital delay effect.
} In the case you are exposing you will certainly have the same effect
} with a initial 24/48 sample rate up-sampled to 96 just to process the
} effect. This method was used by Steinberg in one of their VST EQ plugin
} in order to improved the response of the EQ in high frequency.
} You don't need 24/96 to have those sound, you need better digital effect
} processors !!!
It's a perfectly good example... It's indicative of the results that I get
overall. With 24/96 I get what I want... regardless of the reasons behind
it. Why would I use anything else? Because someone else tells me I should?
I never meant to say anyone should use anything other than what gives
them the best sound. I should have been more specific, my point was
that I think 96khz is overkill for recording sounds from outside the
computer. Of course you should upsample and process at a higher
resolution if possible, no matter what format your input is, just
because it gives you more room for error.
Lee