Subject: [linux-audio-user] 96K
From: Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen (k.s.matheussen_AT_notam02.no)
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 14:51:24 EEST
Matthew Barber:
>
> ->My impression is that the more maths an audio professional knows, the
> more
> sure the audio professional is that higher sampling rates is a
> bad thing. (unless you are recording sounds that is later going to be
> downsampled a lot of course)
>
> Perhaps its impossible for us non-skilled-mathematicians to
> understand properly why 96 kHz is a bad thing...<-
>
>
>
> One thing 96K provides is plenty of headroom for aliasing if you're
> doing some kind of novel synthesis technique that tends to generate tons
> of high partials... the 24 bits are nice, too.
>
I was actually just thinking about 96kHz for recording/playback, not
processing. I guess I lost the context of the discussion.
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 14:58:38 EEST