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
|