naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

1. Re: file types

Subject: 1. Re: file types
From: "Marinos Koutsomichalis" marinoskouts=
omichalis
Date: Mon May 11, 2009 1:55 am ((PDT))

do not worry about aliasing distortion,=0D
even the cheapest converters place a filter prior to the actual  =0D
converting to ensure that only=0D
frequencies below the nyquist will pass the gate.. So do not worry=0D


In theory recording in 96K gives you better quantization and more  =0D
energy in the high frequency range (that though not audible, are  =0D
supposed to be conceived someway)=0D
So, In most situations there is no significant audible difference  =0D
when selecting 96K -=0D
this might not be the case if you used microphones that could deliver
this high frequency energy=0D
to the recording device in the first place, as most microphones  =0D
cannot.. Actually the only one I know is able to do so in sennheiser MKH=0D
- or then again, if you plan not to down-sample @ 44100... maybe then
it' s better to have them in the first place recorded @ 96K=0D

but I think that most people will not understand any difference even  =0D
in an A - B test...=0D

all these about recording in 441K or 96K in the first place,=0D
I am not sure if there will be any kind of degradation or artifacts  =0D
when downsampling from 96 to 44.1=0D
but as I read once in a mastering handbook - every digital process  =0D
does has artifacts !!!=0D



On 11 =CE=9C=CE=B1=CF=8A 2009, at 6:45 =CE=A0=CE=9C, justinasia wrote:=0D

>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> > I run a professional recording/mastering studio & one of the  =0D
> banes of=0D
> > my existence is people bringing in files for mixing or mastering  =0D
> which=0D
> > have been recorded at 48k. I can convert quickly, but at lower=0D
> > quality.=0D
>=0D
> Hi Scott=0D
> Thanks for the input. When you convert 48 to 44.1 quickly, you say  =0D
> it is at lower quality. Will the resulting 44.1 file be lower  =0D
> quality than if you had recorded directly at 44.1 in the first place?=0D
>=0D
> Also as yet I have not understood, is there any noticeable  =0D
> advantage for us to use even 96kHz, over 44.1kHz? IN particular if  =0D
> we will anyway be finally converting the files to 44.1kHz CD format?=0D
>=0D
> For example I read about aliasing distortions which apparently give
> 96kHz an advantage. I can't say I understand what that really  =0D
> means, but am wondering, is that relevant or noticeable for our  =0D
> nature recordings?=0D
>=0D
> Justin=0D
>=0D
>=0D
> =0D










<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • 1. Re: file types, Marinos Koutsomichalis <=
Admin

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