[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Re: Frequencies was Re: AW: AW: OT: new Macbook wíthOUT Firewire :(
Bob said:
> Personally, I don't know how much better, but if you have equipment
>capable
> of handling 192kHz sampling instead of 48kHz, then you might as well use
>it.
Unfortunately, I can't find the reference right now, but I remember a
study conducted by one of those "big ears" (Lipinski?) who came to the
conclusion that in blind testing, those super-top-level thingies are equal
or better at 96kHz compared to 192kHz...go figure.
> frequency you originally sampled it at. There is no advantage to 192kHz
> sampling and down converting to 48 over simply sampling at 48kHz in the
> first place.
Nearly true. If you record at 96kHz (or 88.2kHz, if you're happier with
that), THEN dither and noiseshape and THEN downsample, the noiseshaping
will move noise into a frequency range which will get filtered before
downsampling.
Rainer