Kevin Cosgrove wrote: > 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 > Makes sense, Kevin. I guess it's a dynamic range vs. resolution issue. Interesting questions Julien. Be sure to post your discoveries and solutions. Sorry I don't have any advice or experience to help. Frank _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
