Re: [microsound] High sampling rates/Bit depths

[Dave Watson <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--John Nowak <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [040917 12:40]:
> >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.

You missed what I was trying to get across though.  I'm not talking
about recording regular instruments.  I'm talking about going places and
capturing real life high frequency audio that we never hear.  Then once
it's recorded bringing it down into the human frequency range so that it
can be heard.  Like recording a dog whistle or something.

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