Re: [microsound] High sampling rates/Bit depths

[John Nowak <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Firstly, let me say I agree with you when it comes to production 
issues. I wish 48 was the standard instead of 44.1, as it gives a bit 
more wiggle room with the filters. That said...

On Sep 17, 2004, at 10:37 AM, ian stewart wrote:

> Everyone I know with the equipment to properly convert and monitor 
> 88.2/96 kHz audio reports a much more open and comfortable listening 
> experience compared with 44.1 kHz

I, on the other hand, do not know any such people (whom I put any trust 
in anyway). Of course on the third hand, I do not know many people to 
begin with... possibly because they're scared of my third hand.

> -There are reports of physiological responses to ultrasound (in bone 
> structure, etc).

If you know anywhere I could read about such loveliness, I'd appreciate 
it.

> As for bit depth, 16 bits can only record a dynamic range of 6x16= 96 
> dB, which is significantly less than the range of human hearing.

I'd suspect the number of tracks you'd want to have a range greater 
than 96dB are incredibly limited. Very rarely would you want to go from 
a whisper to pain-inducing. Again, of course, for production this is 
useful, but I'm skeptical that a greater dynamic range would have much 
of an impact. Many audiophiles prefer vinyl to CDs, and in fact vinyl 
has less of a dynamic range than CDs to.

- John Nowak


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