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

[John Nowak <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 31, 2004, at 11:03 AM, colin wrote:

> 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

This could be do to other things as well such as the quality of the A/D 
converters and such. That said, 24-bits is nice and does indeed sound 
somewhat better, and is nicer to work with... I haven't noticed as much 
difference with higher SRs as I have with more bits. Either way though, 
I still feel that in most cases 16/44.1 is "good enough".

> 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.

To actually run a softsynth at a high sample rate though uses a lot 
more processing power. I had a 24/96 card for my Powerbook, but I ended 
up returning it as the sound wasn't much better than the built-in, and 
I didn't have the power to run everything at 96000 anyway.

- JN


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