Is 24/96 worth it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drstawl
  • Start date Start date
drstawl

drstawl

Banned
I just put together the same old same old MIDI composition

(hehehehehe)

with a twist:

The audio from the same (16 bit) synth was captured at 24/96
& rendered to mp3 as a 128Kbps mp3 with a 48KHz attribute.

I have it at my site and at:

http://nowhereradio.com/drstawl



U232d

Did this stuff come out any cleaner than with the 16 bit capture system?
 
can o' techno worms.

I hope this thread is deeply covered. I will follow the whole way up.

Floating bit algorythms, floors, head room, sample rates.......


Great question,

Let the answers begin.


(not that you needed an introduction as taudry as mine)

humble

theron.
 
Ding Dang!!

Sounded great to me. Clean, cut, beefy and lean.

Please don't rip me,,,,,,,,,,,,it really did sound good.


.
 
Thanks!

Didn't mean to come off harsh! HAHAHA.

I wanted to hear from those who have checked out my stuff captured with the Gina20 @16/44.1 vs these 24/96 recordings done with the Delta 1010.
 
Sounds really good, drstrawl.
Everything comes through and no muddle. Clear and consise.
Highs & lows.
Great Job.
 
Hi drs, I just got a Delta 66- Omni I/O over the weekend, still getta get the monitors but I've been anxious to put that same question to the test. Do you have the original 16/44(or 48)version of the song up anywhere? This one sounds fine but I'm not sure what I'm comparing it too.
 
I should know better than to reply without listening but..

From my experience and what I've read elsewhere on this forum you need to encode at a higher bit rate to pick the difference, 192Kbps or above... of course It depends on the source sound but I'd imagine the small improvement would be lost at that bit rate.

Of couse I could be utterly wrong too... just wish I had better bandwidth to listen myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top