Re: [linux-audio-user] 192kHz

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 08:29 -0500, Joe Hartley wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:28:08 +0100
> Carlo Capocasa <capocasa@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> > My question, how useful is 192kHz for practical purposes? How quickly is
> > that likely to change? I'd really appreciate some advice here, thank you.
>
> I've got a card that does 24/96 (a Delta 1010). In a side by side test,
> I _think_ my old ears hear the slightest of differences between recordings
> done at 24/96 and those done at 16/44, but in the end, I decided to save
> the disk space and always record at 16/44, since everything I do is going to
> get resampled to that anyway for CDs.
>

    The biggest part of that difference is 16 vs 24. I've recorded the
same source data in 24/44.1 and 24/96 and there is a slight noticeable
difference but, as you say, you've got to sample down to 16/44.1 anyway
so I usually just record 16/44.1.

-- 
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be 
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and 
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of 
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744