[linux-audio-user] Re: 192kHz

> It's a controversial issue, so be prepared to encounter many different
> opinions.

Yeah!

>From a practical standpoint, I believe that 192 is only rarely needed.
> 96 should be just as good. It is not likely that the situation is going
> to change in the near future.

So you're talking about a possible switch from consumer equipment to
higher bitdepths/frequencies?

> You need extremely high-quality (and extremely expensive) components in
> your audio chain to exploit the difference between 192 and 96. You also
> need very good mixing and mastering skills in order to stay at the top
> of the quality ladder.

Yeah... Law of diminishing returns at work? As for the mastering I'm
wondering if it's worth it to get really good at it myself or if that's
a lot like learning another musical instrument and best left to the
pros. (Not meaning people who band together in 'professional
organizations' but people who do it a lot :)

> I would be much more worried about the bit depth - use 24bit instead of
> 16 whenever possible throughout the processing chain.

I would assume using 32bit is similar in how much 'bang for the buck'
you get than using 192 kHz?

Thanks a lot for sharing, Florin, appreciate your insights and
differentiated response!

Carlo
Received on Fri Jan 27 00:15:11 2006