Last Saturday 19 June 2004 20:48, Jan Depner was like: > > I must admit I have not. ?But I don't need to try satellite internet to > > know that it's unusable either, I know what the speed of light is and I > > can do the math. > > ????????Yes, but even physiologists don't completely understand how hearing > works. ?Nyquist doesn't appear to be the answer to everything. ?Read the > latest issue of TapeOp and especially the interview with Walter Sear. ?I > tend to record at 24/44.1 but that's just because 16/44.1 is my target > and I don't use much in the way of effects. ?I also hear a difference > though when I record 24/44.1 and 24/96. I don't understand all the ins and outs of this, but surely the sample rate affects more than just audible pitch. Most people aren't aware of much above 16k, however the ear/brain is surely capable of perceiving differences, so a higher sample rate is going to sound smoother in the way that faster film looks smoother, the ear will perceive curves rather than digital grainyness. Surely the software will 'notice' the difference even more allowing you to avoid those strange edge of spectrum aliasing effects. My understanding is limited, so I welcome any further enlightenment on the subject. Myself, I work at 16/48k, because my system is limited, not because I think it's best. Considering that, up to 2 years ago I was still using cassette tape, the sound quality I'm experiencing now is a freakin' revelation! cheers tim hall
