Re=3a Re=3a Freque=6ecies was Re=3a AW=3a AW=3a =4fT=3a =6eew =4dacb=6f=6f=6b w=edth=4fUT Firewire =3a(

[rs@moinlabs.de]

Bob said:
> Personally, I don't know how much better, but if you have equipment 
>capable
> of handling 192kHz sampling instead of 48kHz, then you might as well use 
>it.

Unfortunately, I can't find the reference right now, but I remember a 
study conducted by one of those "big ears" (Lipinski?) who came to the 
conclusion that in blind testing, those super-top-level thingies are equal 
or better at 96kHz compared to 192kHz...go figure.

> frequency you originally sampled it at.  There is no advantage to 192kHz 
> sampling and down converting to 48 over simply sampling at 48kHz in the 
> first place.

Nearly true. If you record at 96kHz (or 88.2kHz, if you're happier with 
that), THEN dither and noiseshape and THEN downsample, the noiseshaping 
will move noise into a frequency range which will get filtered before 
downsampling.

           Rainer