26 Jan
2004
26 Jan
'04
9:58 a.m.
AFAIK the only reason for going to 96KHz is to allow for digital effects
processing to do a better job. Maybe some people can hear a difference
on *very* expensive equipment but eventually you have to go to 16 bit
44.1KHz ;-)
Jan
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 03:19, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
Florin Andrei wrote:
Anyone here using 192kHz for sampling?
are you trying to record for dogs or bats ? ;)
seriously, the only measurably effect of 192k is that it fills up your
disks faster and eats more cpu when processing.
imnsho, all this sampling rate hype is a clever industry ploy to keep
people from thinking that their hardware is finally good enough and they
can stop buying now.
people can't hear over 20k. period. 48k sampling rate gives you 24k
minus what's cropped off by the aliasing filter. granted, higher
sampling allows you to use a simpler, less steep aliasing filter, and
some people claim to perceive an improvement from that. but even then,
96k should be enough.
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)