Subject: | 3. Re: High Sample Rates |
---|---|
From: | "dan.cesonrocks" dan.cesonrocks |
Date: | Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:01 am ((PDT)) |
Hello all, I just wanted to report some crossover information (about the use higher sa= mpling rates) from the worlds of audiophiles and pro audio recordists. I won't pretend to be able to explain all the details, but will say that ea= ch of these groups seem to think that the justification for use of higher s= ampling rates in recording has next to nothing to do with whether we can he= ar (explicitly or subconsciously) or record frequencies above 22.05 kHz (th= e Nyquist frequency). Rather they seem to believe that use of higher sampl= ing rates (in recording) results in better sound reproduction due to other = factors, not the least of which are the filters employed to reduce digital = artifacts (and which introduce their own issues). Apologies if this is straying from 'nature recording'. clay |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | 2. Re: High Sample Rates, Michael Oates |
---|---|
Next by Date: | 4. Re: High Sample Rates, Marinos Koutsomichalis |
Previous by Thread: | 3. Re: High Sample Rates, Dan Dugan |
Next by Thread: | 4. Re: High Sample Rates, Raimund Specht |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU