On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 21:24, LinuxMedia wrote: > > Meh, I can't tell the difference. I've yet to hear a compelling > > argument for preferring anything more than 16bit/44.1k. Personal > > opinions abound, but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." > > I swear I can hear the difference between 16bit/44.1k and 16bit/48k. > When I decided to use the extra 3.9K that my card allows, I did a "side > by side test" of a 44.1K and 48K. The difference is quality is enough > for me to record at a standard 48K rate. > Well, 48khz has been the standard in professional digital audio since day one, for a reason I would think. 44.1 is an oddball, a quirk of the CD format. Probably they couldn't quite figure out how to get enough music on a CD at 48khz, so they stupidly forced people to downsample to 44.1 rather than wait a year or two until the capacity got better. Or they didn't want people having exact digital copies of the master DATs. Lee
