Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote: > My impression is that the more maths an audio professional knows, the > > more > sure the audio professional is that higher sampling rates is a > bad thing. (unless you are recording sounds that is later going to be > downsampled a lot of course) > Perhaps its impossible for us non-skilled-mathematicians to > understand properly why 96 kHz is a bad thing... 96kHz is not bad, 192kHZ IS bad. 96 pushes side effects of filters in the A/D/A chain beyond out hearing. However, it's suspected that 192 is not so good as there isn't sufficient time between samples to allow components (e.g. caps) to function correctly. I think I've said this before but read Dan Lavry's paper on the subject at http://lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf Yes, Dan Lavry does makeand sell ADCs but this subject has been discussed to death on a number of audio lists and forums frequented by many eminent engineers. It is the concensus that 96kHZ is a Good Thing (tm). Greg ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
