On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 14:11 +0100, Wolfgang Woehl wrote:
> fons adriaensen <fons.adriaensen@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 01:30:54AM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
>
> > > One big reason for going up to 96kHz is not primarily
> > > because of being able to sample high frequencies, but
> > > because you don't need such a sharp filter at the input
> > > that may taint your input signal.
> >
> > Again very true. The main reason why some people can hear a
> > very very subtle difference between 48 and 96 kHz seems to
> > be that it's quite difficult to make a 'perfect' filter for
> > 48 kHz, even digitally. There are very few DACs that get
> > this right (e.g. Apogee, and you pay for it).
>
> Ok, filter quality. Esben, Fons, on another aspect of
> samplerates higher than 48k: Is it possible that what is
> audible from an orchestra for example stems in part from
> interference or intermodulation of harmonics from above the
> audible band? Relevant for the reproduction had the
> performance been recorded to discrete channels?
>
True - "beat frequency" between two very close tones may be much
lower frequency than the tones themselves. However, these lower
frequencies would be recorded if you are using live sources. Your room
mic(s) should pick these up and they would be recorded at 48KHz.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
