Matthew Barber: > > ->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...<- > > > > One thing 96K provides is plenty of headroom for aliasing if you're > doing some kind of novel synthesis technique that tends to generate tons > of high partials... the 24 bits are nice, too. > I was actually just thinking about 96kHz for recording/playback, not processing. I guess I lost the context of the discussion. --
