Re: [microsound] High sampling rates/Bit depths

[John Nowak <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 17, 2004, at 2:06 AM, Dave Watson wrote:

> I can hear a difference with 24 bit vs. 16 bit.  But I think 
> excessively high sampling rates are just a way to get people to buy 
> new gear.  The only advantage I see to them is that you can record 
> exceptionally high frequency's and then bring them down into the human 
> audible range.

Obviously software applications with high internal sampling rates are 
useful to avoid things like aliasing... but that's about it really. 
Same thing for 32-bit audio.

I completely agree with you that there is a difference between 24-bit 
and 16-bit (although I think its relatively small, and only noticeable 
even then with certain material). Recording with sample rates such as 
192000 is just a waste of HD space.

I personally think 24/96 is more than sufficient for recording (I like 
24/44.1 myself), and I'm satisfied with 16/44.1 for playback.

- John Nowak


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org