On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 22:55, RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 19-Jun-2004 Vescovi Christophe wrote: > } RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx a crit : > > } > :} I *need* those sounds. > > } Sorry but this is a bad example ..... > } This example has nothing to do with the sample rate of the sample > } (sound) but with the method used to implement a digital delay effect. > } In the case you are exposing you will certainly have the same effect > } with a initial 24/48 sample rate up-sampled to 96 just to process the > } effect. This method was used by Steinberg in one of their VST EQ plugin > } in order to improved the response of the EQ in high frequency. > } You don't need 24/96 to have those sound, you need better digital effect > } processors !!! > > It's a perfectly good example... It's indicative of the results that I get > overall. With 24/96 I get what I want... regardless of the reasons behind > it. Why would I use anything else? Because someone else tells me I should? > I never meant to say anyone should use anything other than what gives them the best sound. I should have been more specific, my point was that I think 96khz is overkill for recording sounds from outside the computer. Of course you should upsample and process at a higher resolution if possible, no matter what format your input is, just because it gives you more room for error. Lee
