omichalis
Date: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:33 pm ((PDT))
At least in theory,=0D
recording in high sample rates improves the quality of the signal =0D
because of less quantization artifacts=0D
bare in mind also that most of the times the question is not on the =0D
sampling rate but on the actual overall quality of the convertors !=0D
even if you record the same material at the same sampling rate with =0D
different convertors you will probably get different results ! the =0D
fact that a zoom H2 can record @ 96Khz doesn' t mean that this will =0D
sound better than a nagra working on 44,100 even if you let aside the
quality of the pre-amps. Actually it doesn' t even means that it =0D
will have all these high frequencies we are talking about, I am not =0D
convinced that a machine that cheap for example is really able to do =0D
so..=0D
It is really difficult to judge whether these high frequencies are =0D
perceived because this is directly related to WHAT you record HOW you
record it iwhat speakers you use it how loud you playback what =0D
convertors you use... and so on..=0D
On 19 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2009, at 10:10 =CE=9C=CE=9C, Curt Olson wrote:=0D
> I wrote:=0D
>=0D
> >> Bottom line... I think Steve, Dan and Rob are probably right that=0D
> >> better metadata is more important than higher sample rates.=0D
>=0D
> John Hartog wrote:=0D
>=0D
> > Hi Curt,=0D
> > I don't see the bottom line yet.=0D
> > How does metadata being important suggest that high sample rates are=0D
> > not? Maybe they are both important. These listening tests that we=0D
> > refer to are about marketing music only, and they only show we think=0D
> > we can hear no difference. There are many things that we cannot=0D
> > consciously describe that do indeed affect mind and body. And then=0D
> > there is species and ecosystem documentation - what about all that=0D
> > communication above 20k?=0D
>=0D
> Good points, John. Perhaps I was a wee bit hasty. I gladly defer to=0D
> good wisdom.=0D
>=0D
> Curt Olson=0D
> =0D
|