On 22 Mar 2007, at 14:35, Raimund Specht wrote:
> > Those are good points Gianni. As a post production person I would
> > certainly like to see more people recording in 24/96, it makes a
> > massive difference when mixing multiple tracks.
>
> I would agree that 24 bit instead of 16 bit would make a difference,
> but I'm not so sure about the sample rate...
Yes going to 24 bit is the main benefit, but the HF aliasing which
can be un-noticable at 44.1 can suddenly start to conspire against
you when you start mixing a large number of tracks. EQing can also
really accentuate this aliasing at lower sample rates.
Of course if you are recording in two tracks and you intend to go
straight to CD with minimal or no processing then the benefits are
debatable.
> > Often the discussion of the benefits of higher sampling rates
> focuses
> > on the high frequency spectrum, but it makes a real difference to
> the
> > low end too, comparing the lower registers of a Cello or Double Bass
> > at 44 and 96 will leave you with little doubt.
>
> I don't understand that. By theory, low frequencies should not benefit
> from increasing the sample rate.
I can't give you a scientific reason why, but bass sounds more alive
at 96. I did some recordings with a cellist friend of mine at 44.1
and 96 because we were interested in what difference it would make to
the top end and the 'air' of the recording. We were really surprised
when we noticed a difference in the low-end as well. I've since read
bass players talking about this effect also.
S
|