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