Re: [LAU] newbie to Linux audio

Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> There's little discussion about the merits of 24 bits over 16.
> Same for 48 kHz vs. 44.1.
>
> As to 96 kHz vs. 48, unless you have the very best converters the
> only difference you will hear is that _your hardware_ performs
> better at 96 Khz. This doesn't mean that the higher rate is better
> by itself. If you can hear a difference when using e.g. Apogees
> please report and then I'll challenge you for a blind test. :-)
>
>

There's a lot that I'm ignorant about with regards to digital audio. As
I said, a couple of friends who do location recording similar to what I
plan have said that DVD-audio, at 24/96, is decidedly better sounding
than standard grade CD recordings at 16/44.1, which is something I'd
like to hear for myself. That's really what this is all about.

My playback system is one of the best I know of, at any price. It's not
the most expensive gear in the world, but it plays as well as the most
expensive gear in the world. For starters, I plan to go out and record
my wife's string quartet at 24/96. I'll bring it home and will listen
to it at 24/96. I'll convert it to 16/44.1 and will listen to it that
way as well. Then I'll burn 'em both to media and will listen to them
through my DVD player.

I have no idea what the experience will be like. I may hear nothing
different, or I may hear a great deal. Chances are the differences
won't be huge, but I really have no idea. I hear people say things but
until I do it for myself, I really don't know.

Perhaps someone could point me at an article or two that discusses the
relative merits of different bit and sampling rates and what to expect
from them.

Russ
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
Received on Wed Jul 18 12:15:02 2007