Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Message

Re: [motm] No 88.2 or 96k then?

2004-02-08 by Robert van der Kamp

On Sunday 08 February 2004 19:14, Mike Marsh wrote:

> Regarding recording MOTM onto disc: the less between the
> MOTM and the bits on the disc the better.  Once the
> signal is converted to bits, you can tweak if you want,
> but the keep original bits around. Also, go with 24 bits,
> then dither to 16 AS THE LAST STEP before burning the CD.
>  A 24 bit recording (properly) dithered to 16 sounds MUCH
> better than a straight up 16 bit reording.  I use Ozone
> to dither and it does a spectacular job.

I'm aware of the 24 bit technique, and the dithering. But 
I'm surprised that no one suggests the need for high sample 
rates. Afaik, sampling at 44.1 or 48k is asking for 
aliasing caused by signals living around the 20k range (I'm 
told they 'wrap' around the freq roof of an AD. Afaik, if 
I'd use a '300 saw waveform, I get lots of partials in that 
frequency range, and maybe even higher.

Mind you I've never tried it (no 96k option here). But I got 
this knowlegde from web articles written by a mastering 
engineer (can't remember the source right now). What I 
concluded from those articles is that you have to use the 
highest possible sample rate to approach that analog audio 
feel (apart from a jittter-free clock, etc, etc.). 

- Robert

Attachments

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.