> Some notes on 96khz: > > I tried working exclusively with 96Khz for about a month. The dynamic > range is so extreme that the faintest of sounds are picked up. > "Silence" no longer exists. ANYWHERE. Ladspa plugins like gates don't > go below -70db, and they need to. A plus was I felt free to sell all > my outboard compressors. My analog synths sounded fatter, voice more > robust, but at least some of that was the result of turning my knobs > down from "11" to give me 10DB or more of headroom. (I'd fallen into a > bad habit) Wow this is fascinating... Can't wait to try it! > I could hear leaves in trees blowing outside You know reading this I feel like I'm listening to some hoozy meditation tape, I'm starting to feel all connected to nature and stuff :) > "deader" Mhm, that's kind of what I was suspecting... Now I know we're not going to be able to deliver to consumers for some time, but could it be that 192kHz would offer again another boost > > Note: I have a good ear (can hear up to 22khz in one ear - compensates > for the other which doesn't go above 4k) Eeer, diver? > So having hires audio is good for debugging your studio, and pure > 96khz sound sources, but not so hot for development or analog work. I see, great experience to share, thanks! > The primary reason I remain interested in using it is to encode down > higher quality surround. > 192Khz strikes me as complete overkill, except perhaps in that instance. Thanks Mike Carlo
