my thought on sample rates

[RAK]

My son did and has been raving about it. To see it live would be awsome.

For sure, If you have a chance to see the movie, I highly recommend it.

What was this thread about again?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

For sure, If you have a chance to see the movie, I highly recommend it.

Agreed. One of better movies of the year so far for my tastes. The casting is absolutely terriffic.

And if you're a fan of RE-20s you'll be in nirvana

As to my opinion of the whole sample rates issue (just to make this post relevant); for the majority of us, sample rate is the very last thing we need to be worrying about. Worrying about sample rate at the prosumer/indie level is like the Chicago City Council worrying about passing a law banning foie gras instead of concentrating on stuff like budgets, schooling, crime, etc.

G.

 

[Track Rat]

Agreed. One of better movies of the year so far for my tastes. The casting is absolutely terriffic.

And if you're a fan of RE-20s you'll be in nirvana

As to my opinion of the whole sample rates issue (just to make this post relevant); for the majority of us, sample rate is the very last thing we need to be worrying about. Worrying about sample rate at the prosumer/indie level is like the Chicago City Council worrying about passing a law banning foie gras instead of concentrating on stuff like budgets, schooling, crime, etc.

G.

As usual, spot on.

 

[apl]

Ethan Winer said it well, something like, "Ever heard a CD that blew you away? Then 44.1/16 is good enough."

 

[RAK]

Ethan Winer said it well, something like, "Ever heard a CD that blew you away? Then 44.1/16 is good enough."

There are those who think the term "CD Quality" is an oxymoron. For me, CDs are just fine, but I draw the line at "Broadband Quality" That phrase gets me every time.

 

[bennychico11]

Ethan Winer said it well, something like, "Ever heard a CD that blew you away? Then 44.1/16 is good enough."

I always say have you ever heard a CD and been able to instantly pick out whether they recorded at 192kHz? Or have you gotten a CD and said "wow, this is terrible...it must be the sample rate the engineer used. 192kHz would have made this album so much better."

 

[jho1986]

there are reasons to record at higher sample rates then 44.1 KHz even if you are going to eventually convert it to 44.1 KHz. Has anyone heard of the term alias. While we cant hear frequencies over around 20K, some mics can. Those frequencies we cant hear are still good to capture because they effect the sound we do hear. If we record at 44.1, then any frequency over the Nyquist frequency, which would be 22.05 KHz, will be captured as an alias. To me this is enough reason to record at 88.2

 

[apl]

there are reasons to record at higher sample rates then 44.1 KHz even if you are going to eventually convert it to 44.1 KHz. Has anyone heard of the term alias. While we cant hear frequencies over around 20K, some mics can. Those frequencies we cant hear are still good to capture because they effect the sound we do hear. If we record at 44.1, then any frequency over the Nyquist frequency, which would be 22.05 KHz, will be captured as an alias. To me this is enough reason to record at 88.2

The anti-aliasing filters would take that right back out when you decimated.

 

[danny.guitar]

there are reasons to record at higher sample rates then 44.1 KHz even if you are going to eventually convert it to 44.1 KHz. Has anyone heard of the term alias. While we cant hear frequencies over around 20K, some mics can. Those frequencies we cant hear are still good to capture because they effect the sound we do hear. If we record at 44.1, then any frequency over the Nyquist frequency, which would be 22.05 KHz, will be captured as an alias. To me this is enough reason to record at 88.2

That would be fine if you didn't have to convert back down to 44.1/16-bit when burning it to a CD.