samplerate
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:00 pm
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:31 pm
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:52 am
noooooooooooooooooooo. lets not start this again 
VDAT sounds so much better because it's 32 integer right? 
thanks for the link
VDAT sounds so much better because it's 32 integer right? thanks for the link
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:10 am
completely useless to use a sample rate which preserves frequencies above 20K while the whole system doesn't support it. It's like convert a wav to an mp3 and ask people to hear the difference through an intercom. 
How many are the home hifi amps that can reproduce over 20k?
IMO a part from sound generation/processing 96k is useless.
cheers
Fede
How many are the home hifi amps that can reproduce over 20k?
IMO a part from sound generation/processing 96k is useless.
cheers
Fede
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:30 am
Interesting stuff.
As a delivery medium, I think CDs are perfectly adequate (as would 16bit, 44.1kHz be for digital distribution). The 16bit noise floor is well below that of the vast majority of listeners' rooms, and as was mentioned earlier, it makes little/no sense to reproduce sound above the human hearing range...
Leave the higher SRs for processing (and, therefore, the recording stage).
IMO
Cheers!
As a delivery medium, I think CDs are perfectly adequate (as would 16bit, 44.1kHz be for digital distribution). The 16bit noise floor is well below that of the vast majority of listeners' rooms, and as was mentioned earlier, it makes little/no sense to reproduce sound above the human hearing range...
Leave the higher SRs for processing (and, therefore, the recording stage).
IMO
Cheers!
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:37 pm
actually the most beautifully recorded tracks I have worked with were orchestral recordings on otari radar at 44.1kHz.
I miss dynamic range.
I miss dynamic range.