Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:21 PM, mark francombe <markfrancombe@gmail.com> wrote: > I snagged this URL from Geir Jennsens (biosphere) Fb page... if its > true its pretty interesting, any audiophiles wanna confirm or deny? > Maybe it's common knowledge? > > http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html > > I'm pretty lo fi, have bad equipment. and never really been able to > hear "good quality" I have always put high fidelity down to " good > mixing" rather than high specs... so I enjoyed what I read here... I'm not an audiophile. My decisions are rather based on pragmatism; what sounds best and what is needed by my clients. That article pretty much confirms my own methods. Some years ago I made a test to see of 196k really is "better". I found that when played back from Logic a 196 k file did not sound better than a 44,1 k file. However, I found a huge difference if the files were indulged in digital processing! The explanation is of course that the higher sampling frequency better matches the higher internal digital processing in Logic. A DAW, Digital Audio Workstation, is all about mathematics and when doing lot of approximations you will of course get the best results by summing at a higher resolution. Interesting was that for digital processing I found a sort of "sweet-spot" at 96 k and 196 k didn't sound better to me than 96 k. But when going down to 44.1 k EQ and virtual instruments sounded less rich. I always work at the bit depth 24. That is not because it sounds better, it is because of the higher headroom that makes it more convenient, faster and safer to handle digital audio, not risking to clip the signal so easily. My usual working format is 24/48, for the simple reason that my biggest client wants that so the music can fit directly into a film mix. Greetings from Sweden Per Boysen www.perboysen.com http://www.youtube.com/perboysen