In the November issue of Electronic Musician there is an article on "Bridging the 96k Gap". Very interesting article. The thing that struck me was that two highly regarded engineers (can't remember their names) said that there very little difference between a track recorded entirely at 24/96 from a track that was recorded at 24/48 and upsampled to 24/96.
For me this is good news as I'm not about to upgrade my studio to support 96k. The cost would be enourmous. Instead I can buy a stereo 24/96 interface (edirol makes a usb one for under $300, MOTU makes one for about a grand) for monitoring and do my pre-mastering at 96k in the DAW.
- chris
Although these individuals had no trouble recognizing the higher
quality of 24 bits over 16 bits, they could not hear an appreciable
difference between the standard 44.1 kHz sample rate used by CDs and
the higher 96 kHz and even 192 kHz sample rates.
I have read some equipment reviews which raved about the improved
quality of higher sample rates, but these were not double blind
studies. Personally I think the reason some higher sample rate
converters sound better is the quality of the filters, not the rate
of conversion. For instance my Apogee Special Edition converters
sound way better than my Digidesign converters both at 44.1 kHz.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.