omichalis
Date: Sat May 9, 2009 1:58 am ((PDT))
my own experience and advice in both in-the-studio and in-the-field =0D
recording=0D
says that it really doesn' t matter that much compared to other =0D
parameters..=0D
Actually this whole thing with the Khz is, I believe, mostly a =0D
marketing trick..=0D
what will make a big deal of a difference is the quality of the AD =0D
converters or the preamps, the noise floor of the machine, the =0D
quality of the capacitors etc etc,=0D
and this is audible while most of the times in real-life situations =0D
there is no audible difference bettwen say 44.100 and 192000Khz...=0D
Bare in mind this,=0D
a nagra ARES pII has significantly better sound than an M-audio =0D
soundcard... even if the first one operates @ 44100 while the later =0D
could record @ 96Khz,=0D
and this is probably due to the quality of the AD converters=0D
there are very expensive top notch pieces of eq that operate only on =0D
44100 and have a great sound !!=0D
On 09 =CE=9C=CE=B1=CF=8A 2009, at 11:29 =CE=A0=CE=9C, justinasia wrote:=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> > No. I recommend 24-bit for all field acquisition, gives you more =0D
> room.=0D
> > Downsampling from 96kHz to 44.1kHz won't create audible artifacts
> with=0D
> > any competent software. Truncating from 24-bit to 16-bit requires=0D
> > adding dither first--probably available in your DAW.=0D
>=0D
> I have been using 24 bit, but I have been wondering about the kHz =0D
> level. I understand that 24 bit makes a useful difference over 16 =0D
> bit. How about the kHz? What are the benefits of 96 over 44.1? I =0D
> have been using 48 kHz as a blind compromise imagining I might get =0D
> some advantage over 44.1 but save some space compared to 96.=0D
>=0D
> Justin=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> =0D
|