AFAIK the only reason for going to 96KHz is to allow for digital effects processing to do a better job. Maybe some people can hear a difference on *very* expensive equipment but eventually you have to go to 16 bit 44.1KHz ;-) Jan On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 03:19, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > Florin Andrei wrote: > > Anyone here using 192kHz for sampling? > > > > are you trying to record for dogs or bats ? ;) > > seriously, the only measurably effect of 192k is that it fills up your > disks faster and eats more cpu when processing. > > imnsho, all this sampling rate hype is a clever industry ploy to keep > people from thinking that their hardware is finally good enough and they > can stop buying now. > > people can't hear over 20k. period. 48k sampling rate gives you 24k > minus what's cropped off by the aliasing filter. granted, higher > sampling allows you to use a simpler, less steep aliasing filter, and > some people claim to perceive an improvement from that. but even then, > 96k should be enough. > > > -- > "I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic > positioning but I've even given up on that too." > - Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com > > > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Kurf?rstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany > http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server) > http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers) > > > >
