[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: 16 bit 48 all we need?
Wow, great article Mark! I've always been happy with 16 bit 48khz, audio, but then I'm cheap and I certainly don't have "golden ears."
The one thing that struck me is that with 192khz recordings there are ultrasonics that cause distortion. It's entirely conceivable to me that people find that distortion pleasing and prefer 192khz recordings for that reason, just like some people prefer analog gear that introduces distortion, The listening tests, though seem to imply that the ultrasonic distortion is theoretical and inaudible.
This article is well timed, as I just bought a 16 bit 48 khz Akai EIE audio interface and was debating whether I should spring the extra money for the "pro" 24/192 version. At least according to this article I made the right choice. Thanks!
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM, 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...
mark
Sent from my (advertisement removed)
--
Art Simon
simart@gmail.com
