Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill wrote: >> So taking all of that into consideration, I can see (not that I >> actually did listening tests here) that it may very well be >> possible that there is an advantage of 96kHz over 48kHz - other >> than loading my computer. van Sinn schrieb: > This is common belief, often debated and not holding water. If belief is debated, what would you expect?... ;-) I can hear easily the difference of 96 kHz versus 44.1 kHz on a cheap converter. (I did the listening test on M-Audio...) But still I work with 44.1... (Its still good enough for live music...) The reason is obvious (aliasing) and a pricier interface might turn the difference down. I guess the good interfaces convert at the higher rates anyway, and downsample inside of the box. Once you are in the digital domain, you can easily get rid of all higher artifacts and work with a lower sampling rate to gain performance... RICHARD SALES schrieb: > Is it the 50KHZ I'm hearing or something about the capsule? Don't > know. But the CD is free from Earthworks - get it! - it's very > puzzling. Especially if they distribute a CD with a sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz! Its not puzzling, its marketing... Of course you hear a difference, its different mics. But what does the difference mean? Which sounds better? If you make the musician believe Music is about sound quality, they have a strong marketing argument, its the only field they can compete at all... It is interesting that most musicians don't bother with listening tests at all, and that points to that fact, that other things are much more important than that last bit of "quality" you might gain... Stefan -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|\-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com