On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 15:01, Greg Murphy wrote: > 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). My only, somewhat less than engineering level thoughts were that some of the fidelity on the reverb and delay tails might be enhanced with a little additional fidelity. I use decent quality live speakers at reasonable non ear splitting levels and generally keep them close enough to maintain a stereo image. Again, I don't want to spur the argument that "Only my Dog can hear that damn noise!" :) My only real concern here was with my new box. I figured it should run this no problemo on the 2.4 kernel with Xruns. I read the other responses from Jack and co (thanks) and need to take a closer look at tweaking my box for optimum performance. R~ > > Greg > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
