| Subject: | Re: file types |
|---|---|
| From: | "justinasia" justinasia |
| Date: | Sat May 9, 2009 1:30 am ((PDT)) |
> No. I recommend 24-bit for all field acquisition, gives you more room. = > Downsampling from 96kHz to 44.1kHz won't create audible artifacts with = > any competent software. Truncating from 24-bit to 16-bit requires > adding dither first--probably available in your DAW. I have been using 24 bit, but I have been wondering about the kHz level. I = understand that 24 bit makes a useful difference over 16 bit. How about the= kHz? What are the benefits of 96 over 44.1? I have been using 48 kHz as a = blind compromise imagining I might get some advantage over 44.1 but save so= me space compared to 96. Justin |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Croc attack, Syd Curtis |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: file types, Marinos Koutsomichalis |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: file types, Dan Dugan |
| Next by Thread: | Re: file types, Marinos Koutsomichalis |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU