MOTM

Sorry, I thought I could stay out of this thread but I guess I was wrong :)

As you know, 20K is a very low sampling rate.  There is a huge difference
between 20 and 44.1  There is an audible improvement depending on the
source with 88.2.  However, it's a case of diminishing returns.  The same
applies to bit depth.  There is much less of a difference between 24 and 20
bit, than there is between 20 and 16 bit.

Things to consider:

1) There is a difference between digital recording and digital mixing.
There isn't any evidence to support the idea that 192 recording sounds
better than 96, but there is some evidence that 192 mixing is better.  This
is one reason why I will continue doing my final mixes in analogue.

2) There are 16/44.1 converters that sound way better than 24/96
converters.  Most of the sound depends on the power supply, shielding,
analogue components used, etc.

3) It's mostly marketing.  Manufactures want to come up with higher numbers
in order to pressure studios into buying the latest gear to impress their
clients.  So you say "I think you need at least 192K".  What happens after
they come up with 384??  I remember when the Digidesign Pro Master 20 was a
big deal.  That lasted about six months.

Quality analogue is still a good investment, but digital goes up in power
and down in price at an alarming rate.  So unless you have unlimited money
to spend, the way to have the best digital sound you can afford is to buy
trailing edge technology.


>So, really, I think you need at lesat 192k.  Can you hear the
>difference?  Hell if I know, but at least the data is THERE.
>Filtering off at 20k is just a hack.  It's lame.  I'd like to have a
>system with NO filtering.  Not likely, sure, but imagine a sampling
>rate so high that at 20k, even drawing everything SQUARE your sound
>would be so high rez that you couldn't tell.  THAT's what i'm talking
>about, yeah, yeah.