>>>>>Sorry if this adding to the confusion but no one has
mentioned 96kHz sampling rate?
Would this make 'more' of a difference than 24 bits
would perhaps to any recording?
I have seen reports by various people who have used
96khz saying that they felt the 'stereo imaging' was
much better defined especially at the HF end with much
less 'smearing' of the image at these upper
frequencies.
So perhaps those that can should record 24 bit 96khz?
OK delivering such a recording on CD is probably not
going to benefit from sampling at 96khz, but Super
Audio CD's would.<<<<<<<
Great for recording bats, rodents and insects then re-sampling but that's a=
s
far as it goes, I have recorded some great bat sounds in this frequency but
of course you can only hear them if you down-sample..
As far as "less smearing" etc, again, you can not tell the difference with
the human ear, this is all tech talk as far as I'm concerned.
Phil
Martyn
****************************************
Martyn Stewart
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:
http://www.naturesound.org
Redmond. Washington. USA
N47.65543 W121.98428
e-mail:
Tel: 425-898-0462
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!
*****************************************
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=3D97359714/grpId=3D2126860/grpspId=3D170508366=
3/msgId
=3D28587/stime=3D1180097312/nc1=3D3848514/nc2=3D3848567/nc3=3D3848590>
|