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

["jan.larsson" <jl@xxxxxxxxx>]

As Owen wrote, you can upsample locally in the software to handle
special cases that would benefit from 96, 192, 384 or higher rates. No
need to run the complete system at high rates.

My hardware protools can run at 96 and 192 kbps without extra cpu-load
on the computer but I'm back now using 44kbps (24-bit).



2005-01-01 kl. 20.59 skrev Joakim Lindén:

> Recording no, I don't think so, but synthesis at higher rates sound
> much clearer to me... Probably because of aliasing of the oscillators.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen Green"
> <o.t.green@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 3:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [microsound] How to record 96kHz audio (OT)
>
>
> > 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?
> >
> > The only unequivocal advantage to working up there (that I know of)
> > is to push artifacts from certain processes outside the audio band
> > (compression and filtering most conspicuously). In which case you can
> > always upsample before processing and come down again. AFAIK there
> > have been no reliable blind tests demonstrating intrinsically better
> > sound quality from high sampling rates (though, depending on your
> > converters, YMMV).
> >
> > Using a 24-bit word length from the get-go, OTOH, is definitely worth
> > it; I tend to work at 24/44.1.
> >
> > HTH
> > Owen


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