In a lot of audio circles, there is a large benefit to higher sample
rates for the post processing involved - it can all be more accurate in
the post processing phase. It is not simply higher frequencies, but
more accuracy.
There is a significant camp that says 96k is best, and 192 has more
problems than it is worth for the space it takes. It can be a deep
subject among audio engineers! (especially classical)
<L>
Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689
On Mar 22, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Raimund Specht wrote:
> Steve, you 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...
>
>> 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.
>
> Raimund
|