On 4 April 2009 at 23:07, Julien Claassen <julien@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Does it make much difference if you record in 48kHz or 96kHz > if you finally get down to 44.1kHz output for the public? I > mean realistically, not just in theory viewed on some analyzer. I've read a few things in "Recording" magazine over the last few years which indicate that bit depth is much more important than bit rate when it comes to compression. If you start with 16-bit audio, then compress it, you'll end up with the signal compressed to less than 16-bits, and then you'll add noise to fill up the remaining bits. They recommend going with more bits. I record at 24-bits. I don't see any usefulness in recording at a higher bit rate, when my target is 44.1kHz. Those same articles didn't say higher bit rates were bad. But, they did say that extra bits are much better than faster bits, at least when it comes to compression issues. Hope that helps.... -- Kevin _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
