Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Sample Rate / Resolution question
From: David Matthews (dgm4+@pitt.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 23:21:19 EET
I'm going to risk getting flamed for this (as sample rate is something of a
religious issue for some people), but I would personally always rather work
at 44.1 and avoid sample-rate conversion if at all possible. The only
exception would be if there were some analog processing somewhere in the
signal path that would require an additional A/D conversion anyway. The
other possibility would be if you had a really good hardware or software
resampler, but even then I'd probably avoid resampling if possible.
However, dithering from a higher bit depth (i.e., 24-bit) down to 16 (while
not completely trivial) is much easier and less likely to produce
artifacts. Thus, my preference is for 24-bit, 44.1 kHz audio. Note that
this is just my personal preference and a lot of people will disagree with
me.
-dgm
--On Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:08 PM -0500 "Richard C. Burnett"
<burnett_AT_tality.com> wrote:r
>
> I wanted to ask everyone a question regarding Sample Rates and
> resolution. Please correct me where I am wrong. I have assumed that
> working in higher resolutions (ie 24-bit) opens up your dynamic range and
> allows you to push the noise floor down. Also, the higher resolution
> allows you to represent more accurately the level of sound, this all seems
> pretty simple.
>
> My question is on Sample Rate. If I am going to be putting something on
> CD eventually, is it better to work with 44.1 kHz or is it more beneficial
> to work at the higher rates? The reason I ask is 96 Khz does not divide
> equally by 44.1 kHz, so I was wondering if you would get aliasing effects,
> since its not equal, and if so, are their benefits in quality from the
> higher rate that outweigh this?
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 23:13:42 EET