Re: [microsound] How to record 96kHz audio (OT)

[colin <noodlesjaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i dunno .. i just upgraded from a us-122@24 44 to a motu828 mkII @ 24 96 and the diference is audible .. even my guitar freinds noticed : P 

and softsynths sound a bit better too ..  i dunno .. i dont really have an amazing monitering or acoustic environment to REALLY test it .. but  it sounds better to me. 

and with the edirol fa-101 with 24 196 audio goin for around 450 theres no reason not to go for the higher rate .. 
---IMO---

-----Original Message-----
From: John Nowak <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Dec 31, 2004 7:23 AM
To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [microsound] How to record 96kHz audio (OT)


On Dec 30, 2004, at 2:16 PM, chthonic wrote:

> this may be a bit OT, but does anyone have an opinion on 88.1kHz
> or 96kHz recording as opposed to 44.1 or 48?

>  it's not like i'm doing a lot of processing in that
> environment, just basically capture, cut and paste.

Save your money. 44.1/48 will suit you fine IMO.

- JN


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



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