2. Re: why recording at 96kHz or more ? [it was ....Re: Noise related

["Rob Danielson" danielson_rob]

At 1:20 PM +0000 3/22/07, Steven Taylor wrote:
>Those are good points Gianni. As a post production person I would=A0
>certainly like to see more people recording in 24/96, it makes a=A0
>massive difference when mixing multiple tracks.
>
>Often the discussion of the benefits of higher sampling rates focuses=A0
>on the high frequency spectrum, but it makes a real difference to the=A0
>low end too, comparing the lower registers of a Cello or Double Bass
>at 44 and 96 will leave you with little doubt.

...

>
>  I used to notice when I had a cat  around the
>house that he just wouldn't react to the
>disembodied  sounds coming out of my speakers,
>yet would jump at the smallest
>'real' sound.


Hi Steven--
Are there any comparative examples of this you
can point us to? The difference in animal
responses you and Gianna refer to are curious.
I'd need to spend $2000 on a faster computer to
mix four tracks at 96Khz but this is not stopping
me from being curious. Rob D.

--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/