On 16/03/14 22:34, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 03/16/2014 09:50 PM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
On 16/03/14 19:39, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 16 March 2014 14:25:14 Ralf Mardorf did opine:
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 08:58 -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
I would mix the project at 48k or 96k
Why 96 KHz? 48 KHz doesn't cause any issues, but already provides best
sound quality.
That I think is a personal call Ralf, primarily because at 48 Khz, your
anti-aliasing filters had better be very very good brick walls by the
time
you get above 24Khz in input content
Can anyone point out a commercially available microphone used in the
audio recording domain which will actually pic frequencies above 20 kHz?
i once talked to a bat researcher (no joke) who had a simple mod to a
røde nt5 that would allow it to work reasonably well up to 30k.
earthworks make special versions of their excellent microphones which
are linear up to 50khz, for those who need it (or think they need it).
ok ok... :-) I was obviously being a bit sarcastic in my statements..
[...]
If the audio produced is made for fruition of humans it makes absolutely
no sense to try and capture or reproduce anything above 20kHz, and for
average individuals 15kHz would probably more than enough.
i'd tend to agree with that statement, but there are very valid reasons
to do it:
* not all recordings are meant for humans to hear - if you are measuring
something, you might appreciate results outside of human sensation.
* not all recordings are meant to be heard in its original frequency
range - talk to any bat enthusiast. seriously, what those guys do makes
you itch to try 192khz and a microphone that is open "from dc to
daylight", as the saying goes.
* sometimes, preservation of information is extremely important. for
instance, there are valid reasons to digitize old analog tapes at
ridiculous rates (say, 384 kHz): doing so lets you record traces of the
HF bias, which might help in eliminating wow and flutter artefacts more
precisely than tracking the 50 or 60hz power grid hum.
or there's a colleague from italy, david monacchi, who records sound
scapes in soon-to-be-destroyed natural habitats - why would you limit
yourself to 10 octaves if you can get 11, before the bulldozers arrive?
(i once heard him lecture on one of his works, and indeed he was using
sonograms to identify certain species of animals, many of which are
capable of uttering ultrasonics.)
there is still ongoing debate about indirect audibility of high
frequency content via transients - i'm not too convinced, but i can
understand any colleague who would rather record too much today and then
downsample, as opposed to finding you won't be able to fully exploit
future distribution formats with your legacy material. if i'm not maxing
out my equipment in terms of cpu cycles, there is no harm done in erring
on the side of caution, if high sample rates don't incur higher costs as
they go through the workflow.
I agree with you actually, especially with all the 'preservation'
scenarios...
I was just being a bit provocative as to overrating gear specs..
Seriously, in all the cases you mention there is at least a thorough
thought behind choice of specs and requirements for recording, and I
like that.
I was also thinking of all the counter-examples, in the _music_ domain,
recorded on technically not-so-hi-quality gear which is just great music :-)
Lorenzo.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
