| Subject: | Re: file types |
|---|---|
| From: | "Chris Edwards" chris2edwards |
| Date: | Sat May 9, 2009 7:46 am ((PDT)) |
On Sat, 9 May 2009, justinasia wrote: | 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 some space compared to 96. Hi, The term you're looking for is "sample rate". In most practical situations, there's not much benefit recording at 96kHz. I'm confident you won't hear any difference between 44.1 and 48. If the material is destined for CD, I'd simply record at 44.1, in order to avoid the need for sample rate conversion. Chris |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: file types, Marinos Koutsomichalis |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: file types, Dan Dugan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: file types, Marinos Koutsomichalis |
| Next by Thread: | Re: file types, Dan Dugan |
| 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