--- In Curt Olson <> wrote:
>
> We've discussed sample rates here before. If I remember right, some
> people claim they can hear a difference between 44.1/48 and 88.2/96 or =
> 192, but others say no.
>
> My question is not about that, but about the future. In cases where we =
> might be documenting soundscape data for future reference, do you all =
> think we should we make an effort to capture the highest possible
> sample rates -- just because we can? Or can we be confident we're
> serving future users well with 44.1/48 recordings?
>
> Curt Olson
>
To get back on track:-
http://www.hifivision.com/music/871-human-hearing-standard-cd-vs-sacd-dvd.h=
tml
I'll take higher dynamic range and lower noise preamps rather than chasing =
the megapixels, erm I mean high sample rates. And while were at it microph=
ones to match. -
Roll on the days we have enough dynamic range for mic emulation built into =
the recorder, learning EQ, mics that indicate their parameters when plugged=
into a recorder - theres far more to consider than the analog domain alone=
. What if your mic indicated its maximum measured frequency (and a whole ho=
st of other parameters, sensitivity, snr etc) and the recorder was capable =
of adjusting the bandwidth to capture using (that) mic ? - Thinking about t=
hat I dread the thought of messages such as "Are you sure you want to captu=
re 192 Khz? I can only manage 44.1 Khz, Abort or Retry? (Y/N)"
Point being, roll on digital mics, digital headphone systems, transfer norm=
alization functions that pass between devices to ensure correct reproductio=
n. The audio equivalent of color management profiles. - Oh and all that sho=
uld happen transparently to the user.
Might be time for me to write a paper to the AES. But generally a photocopi=
er is smarter than me.
Lots to think about, so little time.
-Mike.
|