20 Jun
2004
20 Jun
'04
10:21 a.m.
Last Saturday 19 June 2004 20:48, Jan Depner was like:
I don't understand all the ins and outs of this, but surely the sample rate
affects more than just audible pitch. Most people aren't aware of much above
16k, however the ear/brain is surely capable of perceiving differences, so a
higher sample rate is going to sound smoother in the way that faster film
looks smoother, the ear will perceive curves rather than digital grainyness.
Surely the software will 'notice' the difference even more allowing you to
avoid those strange edge of spectrum aliasing effects. My understanding is
limited, so I welcome any further enlightenment on the subject.
Myself, I work at 16/48k, because my system is limited, not because I think
it's best. Considering that, up to 2 years ago I was still using cassette
tape, the sound quality I'm experiencing now is a freakin' revelation!
cheers
tim hall
I must admit I
have not. But I don't need to try satellite internet to
know that it's unusable either, I know what the speed of light is and I
can do the math.
Yes, but even physiologists don't completely understand how hearing
works. Nyquist doesn't appear to be the answer to everything. Read the
latest issue of TapeOp and especially the interview with Walter Sear. I
tend to record at 24/44.1 but that's just because 16/44.1 is my target
and I don't use much in the way of effects. I also hear a difference
though when I record 24/44.1 and 24/96.