44.1 / 24
but I am idiot I voted something else, sorry dude.
as per nyquist we do not really need 48, 24 is better beacuse of more headroom
ableton live pa (sample quality poll)
-
sorgenkind
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:41 pm
- Location: zh - switzerland
- Contact:
Thanks for the votes!
Interesting. I used to do 44/16 but then i realized that all my music recorded like that sounded like poop. But when i start running higher quality stuff, it seems that I have to deal with more processor related problems.
at 96khz its awesome latency but you can't run much audio. So I don't really see the point.
Interesting. I used to do 44/16 but then i realized that all my music recorded like that sounded like poop. But when i start running higher quality stuff, it seems that I have to deal with more processor related problems.
at 96khz its awesome latency but you can't run much audio. So I don't really see the point.
------------------------------------------------------
http://soundcloud.com/kirkwoodwest
http://soundcloud.com/kirkwoodwest
-
sorgenkind
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:41 pm
- Location: zh - switzerland
- Contact:
-
Robot Criminal
- mnml moderator
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:30 pm
- Location: Est0n14
its definitely NOT overkill.
Its recommendable to work on higher bit/sample rates and not to go 44/16 until after mastering (if going on CD)
Working at low rates would b just stupid nowadays.
check -> http://recording.org/ftopic-34707-0.html
http://studio-central.com/phpbb/viewtop ... 4bit+16bit
2 cents
Its recommendable to work on higher bit/sample rates and not to go 44/16 until after mastering (if going on CD)
Working at low rates would b just stupid nowadays.
check -> http://recording.org/ftopic-34707-0.html
http://studio-central.com/phpbb/viewtop ... 4bit+16bit
2 cents
we are all atomic and subatomic particles and we are all wireless...-
sorgenkind
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:41 pm
- Location: zh - switzerland
- Contact:
check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2 ... ng_theorem
nyquist theory can be simply put like this:
you need to sample at twice as much as the freq. range you can hear.
Since we can hear up to 20 KHz (as babies, almost no one hears more than 16KHz around 30 years) a mere 40 KHz sampling frequency is enough, unless, like I stated before, we have do to with some bat ears.
If some people let fool themselves from crappy marketing tricks made to convince you that you need fucking 192 KHz to be cool it's OK but please, do not quote such vague and inconsistent information as if it were true.
It has also to be said that for every link one posts, the other could post other 10 links stating the exact opposite, there is apparently no final truth in internet.
Take a read at what bob katz writes:
http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/more-bits-please.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2 ... ng_theorem
nyquist theory can be simply put like this:
you need to sample at twice as much as the freq. range you can hear.
Since we can hear up to 20 KHz (as babies, almost no one hears more than 16KHz around 30 years) a mere 40 KHz sampling frequency is enough, unless, like I stated before, we have do to with some bat ears.
If some people let fool themselves from crappy marketing tricks made to convince you that you need fucking 192 KHz to be cool it's OK but please, do not quote such vague and inconsistent information as if it were true.
It has also to be said that for every link one posts, the other could post other 10 links stating the exact opposite, there is apparently no final truth in internet.
Take a read at what bob katz writes:
http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/more-bits-please.html