Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
> On 4 April 2009 at 23:07, Julien Claassen <julien@email-addr-hidden-lab.de> wrote:
>
>
>> Does it make much difference if you record in 48kHz or 96kHz
>> if you finally get down to 44.1kHz output for the public? I
>> mean realistically, not just in theory viewed on some analyzer.
>>
>
> I've read a few things in "Recording" magazine over the last few
> years which indicate that bit depth is much more important than bit
> rate when it comes to compression. If you start with 16-bit audio,
> then compress it, you'll end up with the signal compressed to less
> than 16-bits, and then you'll add noise to fill up the remaining
> bits. They recommend going with more bits. I record at 24-bits.
> I don't see any usefulness in recording at a higher bit rate, when my
> target is 44.1kHz. Those same articles didn't say higher bit rates
> were bad. But, they did say that extra bits are much better than
> faster bits, at least when it comes to compression issues.
>
> Hope that helps....
>
> --
> Kevin
>
Makes sense, Kevin. I guess it's a dynamic range vs. resolution issue.
Interesting questions Julien. Be sure to post your discoveries and
solutions. Sorry I don't have any advice or experience to help.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Apr 5 04:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 05 2009 - 04:15:02 EEST