Oa , Jul 07, 2004 at 03:40:39PM -0700, Russell Hanaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 15:01, Greg Murphy wrote: > > 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. That's a plausible argument for more bits, but not for faster sampling. Somebody mentioned anti-aliasing filters: That's where the benefit lies. When you go from from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling rate, the gap between passband and stopband for your antialiasing filters goes up from 8kHz to 56kHz (assuming a 20kHz audio band) so you can make much better filters: flatter response to 20kHz, less phase error in that range, less overshoot on transients, much smoother clipping if you ever go over range on the A-D, and less interference from spurious HF signals appearing at the input. -- Anahata anahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tel: 01638 720444 http://www.treewind.co.uk Mob: 07976 263827
