Re: Frequencies was Re: AW: AW: OT: new Macbook wíthOUT Firewire :(

[van Sinn <vansinn@post.cybercity.dk>]

rs@moinlabs.de wrote:
> Bob said:
> 
>>Personally, I don't know how much better, but if you have equipment 
>capable
>>of handling 192kHz sampling instead of 48kHz, then you might as well use 
>it.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't find the reference right now, but I remember a 
>study conducted by one of those "big ears" (Lipinski?) who came to the 
>conclusion that in blind testing, those super-top-level thingies are 
>equal or better at 96kHz compared to 192kHz...go figure.
> 
> 
>>frequency you originally sampled it at.  There is no advantage to 192kHz 
>>sampling and down converting to 48 over simply sampling at 48kHz in the 
>>first place.
> 
> 
> Nearly true. If you record at 96kHz (or 88.2kHz, if you're happier with 
>that), THEN dither and noiseshape and THEN downsample, the noiseshaping 
>will move noise into a frequency range which will get filtered before 
>downsampling.
> 
>            Rainer


True, however, this is mostly irrelevant if considering really well 
designed hardware and dither/noiseshaping algorithms.
Wit proper gear and amploying aggressive noise shaping, the higher 
sample rates don't yield any significant benefits.

This can be boiled down to that higher sample rates makes it easier to 
implement well working components, which may well compare better to less 
than adequately designed components working at lower rates.

-- 
rgds,
van Sinn