I 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?
Mike replied:
> To get back on track:-
> http://www.hifivision.com/music/871-human-hearing-standard-cd-vs-sacd-dvd=
.html
>
> 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 microphones 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 host of other
> parameters, sensitivity, snr etc) and the recorder was capable of
> adjusting the bandwidth to capture using (that) mic ? - Thinking
> about that I dread the thought of messages such as "Are you sure you
> want to capture 192 Khz? I can only manage 44.1 Khz, Abort or Retry?
> (Y/N)"
>
> Point being, roll on digital mics, digital headphone systems,
> transfer normalization functions that pass between devices to ensure
> correct reproduction. The audio equivalent of color management
> profiles. - Oh and all that should happen transparently to the user.
>
> Might be time for me to write a paper to the AES. But generally a
> photocopier is smarter than me.
>
> Lots to think about, so little time.
Thank you Mike,
Here's a link to the discussion page about it on the AES website. The
PDF of the paper seems to be available to AES members only, but this
page shows a brief summary of it and some follow-up discussion. I
didn't search any deeper.
http://www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=3D14195
Bottom line... I think Steve, Dan and Rob are probably right that
better metadata is more important than higher sample rates.
Curt Olson
|