Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: producing a drum sample library for hydrogen
From: Lee Revell (rlrevell_AT_joe-job.com)
Date: Sat Jun 19 2004 - 09:12:59 EEST
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 21:24, LinuxMedia wrote:
> > Meh, I can't tell the difference. I've yet to hear a compelling
> > argument for preferring anything more than 16bit/44.1k. Personal
> > opinions abound, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
>
> I swear I can hear the difference between 16bit/44.1k and 16bit/48k.
> When I decided to use the extra 3.9K that my card allows, I did a "side
> by side test" of a 44.1K and 48K. The difference is quality is enough
> for me to record at a standard 48K rate.
>
Well, 48khz has been the standard in professional digital audio since
day one, for a reason I would think. 44.1 is an oddball, a quirk of the
CD format.
Probably they couldn't quite figure out how to get enough music on a CD
at 48khz, so they stupidly forced people to downsample to 44.1 rather
than wait a year or two until the capacity got better. Or they didn't
want people having exact digital copies of the master DATs.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jun 19 2004 - 09:07:42 EEST