On 16/03/14 19:39, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 16 March 2014 14:25:14 Ralf Mardorf did opine:
>
>> On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 08:58 -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
>>> I would mix the project at 48k or 96k
>>
>> Why 96 KHz? 48 KHz doesn't cause any issues, but already provides best
>> sound quality.
>>
> That I think is a personal call Ralf, primarily because at 48 Khz, your
> anti-aliasing filters had better be very very good brick walls by the time
> you get above 24Khz in input content
Can anyone point out a commercially available microphone used in the
audio recording domain which will actually pic frequencies above 20 kHz?
Likewise can anyone point out any commercially available speaker used in
the audio reproduction domain which will actually reproduce frequencies
above 20 kHz?
If the audio produced is made for fruition of humans it makes absolutely
no sense to try and capture or reproduce anything above 20kHz, and for
average individuals 15kHz would probably more than enough.
And in case anyone is tempted to state that even if we don't hear them
frequencies above 20kHz influence the way we hear or 'perceive' music,
please also attach any _scientific_ study/paper/evidence (e.g.
large-scale blind tests etc. not anecdotal evidence) to such statement.
Lorenzo.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Mar 17 00:15:07 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 17 2014 - 00:15:07 EET