Re: [LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:13:01AM -0500, Ricardus Vincente wrote:
>>
>> I was always told that 44.1 was chosen because they wanted to be
>> able to reproduce signals up to 20K, but the other 2.05K of audio was
>> needed for the low-pass filters of the day.
>
> And those of today, that hasn't changed.

I have an RME Multiface II, and though not a really "cheap" converter,
my ears simply find that it only sounds its best when set to 96kHz. I
don't think I'm really requiring ultrasonics to hear well. It's almost
certainly just that its filters are setup to perform well at 96kHz, so
that's the only frequency it really works well at. I think there's a
lot of equipment out there like that.

(And that's the real reason I work at 96...because it's what the
hardware wants...)

-- 
+ Brent A. Busby	 + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin +  banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago	 +  eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ James Franck Institute +  Shakespeare.  Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ Materials Research Ctr +  we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user