Record in 24 bit with 44.1 OR 88.2 OR 192 ?

The other point with the F1 analogy is that there is a clear winner at the end of each race, and all kinds of active measurements during the race to demonstrate what the new design changes/improvements were doing.
The results are the hard evidence.

With recording and sampling rates...it always comes down to someone's personal impression based on what/how they hear something, often from a biased (even if usually unintentional) perspective....which then leaves a lot of room for subjective speculation about what exactly sounded "better".

+1 And "better" is always a subjective term. All one can really say is that two pieces of equipment/softwares sound "different" and the preferred item might actually be technically inferior!

The final arbiter is the original sound. If two mic pres' for instance sound differently one (or both!) MUST be wrong!

I recall MANY years ago when FM radio was just starting, Grundig produced a radio with a tweeter in it. All that had gone before was a single 4-8" speaker. They DOOOOD NOT LIKE them! Peeps complained they were 'tinny'. I found most were run with the top chop at max chop and so much of the percussion and harmonics were back to MW levels, i.e. bugger all.

Dave.
 
"The quality of the silence" was the reason given by a prominent engineer when discussing sample rates. If there is none in the song then the response of your favorite convertors and plugins to higher rates might be the only reason to increase rates.

Not the same but it was explained like televisions and the quality of the black being the determining factor in resolution quality. I personally don't know the answer but my computer's CPU usually dictates, along with the track count, soft quiet or busy loud.


TKeefe | Terry Keefe | Free Listening on SoundCloud
 
Back
Top