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

[Owen Green <o.t.green@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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