Hi David, Do you suggest that 24bit at 44,100 samples/second is a better choice than 24bit at 48,000 samples/second? I do all my studio work at 24bit and 44,100. I've used 44100 because I don't have to convert the sample rate when I go to CD and it mimizes confusion where many engineers work in the same studio. I've basically assumed it's best to avoid conversions if possible and using 44,100 helps with that. Is there any truth to the idea that additional conversions has the potential to introduce noise because of math errors or whatever? --- davidrclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Starting a new thread originating as: > > Re: producing a drum sample library for hydrogen > > I can easily tell the difference, as can many, > between 16- and 24-bit > samples, but not equally for all instruments, of > course. I find it easy to hear the difference in cymbals. And it is not a trivial difference. Then again, my comparisons have all involved two differenct brands of A/D convertors and I imagine they have a big impact. Make sense? I highly, highly > recommend using 24-bit samples for any widely used > library, Makes perfect sense to me. especially > given the amount of processing that most of us do. > I myself also use > 96,000 samples/second because I always do quite a > bit of processing, but > that's a lot tougher sell for a library. I haven't tested 96,000. In the phrase "because I do quite a bit of processing," what do mean by processing? Are you referring to DSP processing (reverb), file format or both? If you don't mind, perhaps you elaborate on the reasoning for this. > --------------------- > > Someone said that 44,100 samples/second is a quirk. > It's not merely a > quirk. 44,100 = 2^2 * 3^2 * 5^2 * 7^2 which has > some useful properties > compared to 48,000 = 2^7 * 3 * 5^3. Lots of small > primes that differ is > sometimes better than a bunch of powers of two, > despite the advantage > primarily associated with FFT's that some focus on. > Looked at from a > prime number standpoint (therefore certain types of > algorithms), > 48,000 is truly bizarre compared to 44,100. I've been under the impression that 48,000 is the odd-ball which was introduced by Alesis with their 16bit 48,000 ADAT decks. I don't pay much attention to this stuff so I'm pretty clueless. Thanks much for the insites. ron 96,000 > is yet ANOTHER power > of two on top of 48,000! Whether a particular > sample rate is a good one > or not is dependent upon more than just what is > customary and standard. > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
