Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: producing a drum sample library for hydrogen
From: RickTaylor_AT_speakeasy.net
Date: Sat Jun 19 2004 - 12:03:35 EEST
On 19-Jun-2004 Lee Revell wrote:
} On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 00:43, RickTaylor_AT_speakeasy.net wrote:
} > On 19-Jun-2004 RickTaylor_AT_Speakeasy.Net wrote:
} > } On 19-Jun-2004 Pete Bessman 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."
} > }
} > } It sounds better?
} >
} > I suppose that should have specified "it"... 24/96 sounds significantly
} > better.
}
} I suspect that 24/48 would sound just as 'better'. Going from 16 to 24
} bits makes sense, but from 48 to 96 does not. It is 100% marketing.
} Just google for 'nyquist frequency', then look up what the range of
} human hearing is.
:} My processor wouldn't deal with it very well anyway.
I don't care what the range of human hearing is. We're talking computer
hardware here. Human ears are all the way at the end of the equation. You have
to have room in between the processes for things to make it all the way to ear
level and remain somewhat intact. {Just look at the level of degradation you get
by resampling just a few times} Considering the punishment I put the average
file through... I need all the buffer I can get.
{The above is meant to be slightly humorous, by the way.}
I'm not really pushing for 24/96 files... {Tho' I do appreciate the difference
that spec makes when it comes to hardware.} I do think 16/44 is pretty weakish
as far as a file format goes... *some* samples sound ok in it. 24/48 is about
the lower level of what I like working with. {16 bit is just plain nasty}
} "Hmm, as long as we're going to increase the file size by 50% to achieve
} a worthwhile goal, might as well double it again for no reason."
}
} The engineers want to go 24 bit, and the 96 thing gets slapped on by the
} marketing department. It's Dilbertian.
Have you actually worked with 24/96?
The differences are major. For instance, at 16/48 I can't push the feedback in
Soundforge's Multitap delay past 50% without it going into a loop and trying to
eat my ears and hardware... At 24/48 I can generally push it a bit... and at
24/96 I can turn it all the way up and still, be able to control it... Seeing
as I work primarilly with noise and feedback... this opens up entire new aural
vistas for me... I can get sounds that would never happen at lower rates.
:} I *need* those sounds.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RickTaylor_AT_Speakeasy.Net
Date: 19-Jun-2004
Time: 03:39:22
This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jun 19 2004 - 12:00:28 EEST