do not worry about aliasing distortion,
even the cheapest converters place a filter prior to the actual=C2=A0
converting to ensure that only
frequencies below the nyquist will pass the gate.. So do not worry
In theory recording in 96K gives you better quantization and more=C2=A0
energy in the high frequency range (that though not audible, are=C2=A0
supposed to be conceived someway)
So, In most situations there is no significant audible difference=C2=A0
when selecting 96K -
this might not be the case if you used microphones that could deliver=C2=A0=
this high frequency energy
to the recording device in the first place, as most microphones=C2=A0
cannot.. Actually the only one I know is able to do so in sennheiser MKH
- or then again, if you plan not to down-sample @ 44100... maybe then=C2=A0=
it' s better to have them in the first place recorded @ 96K
but I think that most people will not understand any difference even=C2=A0=
in an A - B test...
all these about recording in 441K or 96K in the first place,
I am not sure if there will be any kind of degradation or artifacts=C2=A0
when downsampling from 96 to 44.1
but as I read once in a mastering handbook - every digital process=C2=A0
does has artifacts !!!
On 11 =CE=9C=CE=B1=CF=8A 2009, at 6:45 =CE=A0=CE=9C, justinasia wrote:
>
>
>
> > I run a professional recording/mastering studio & one of the=C2=A0
> banes of
> > my existence is people bringing in files for mixing or mastering=C2=A0=
> which
> > have been recorded at 48k. I can convert quickly, but at lower
> > quality.
>
> Hi Scott
> Thanks for the input. When you convert 48 to 44.1 quickly, you say=C2=A0=
> it is at lower quality. Will the resulting 44.1 file be lower=C2=A0
> quality than if you had recorded directly at 44.1 in the first place?
>
> Also as yet I have not understood, is there any noticeable=C2=A0
> advantage for us to use even 96kHz, over 44.1kHz? IN particular if=C2=A0=
> we will anyway be finally converting the files to 44.1kHz CD format?
>
> For example I read about aliasing distortions which apparently give=C2=A0=
> 96kHz an advantage. I can't say I understand what that really=C2=A0
> means, but am wondering, is that relevant or noticeable for our=C2=A0
> nature recordings?
>
> Justin
>
>
>
------------------------------------
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
Yahoo! Groups Links
|