Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution.
user.vdr at gmail.com
Thu Dec 6 16:27:37 UTC 2012
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know that using the mailing list to post links to articles is
>> appropriate, but 24/192 does matter when it comes to processing. As
>> only a final output format, that article is completely correct but to
>> completely disregard 24/192 is misleading because it does have benefit
>> earlier in the production chain.
> I didn't read the article, I only read the mails.
> You don't need more than 48KHz/32-bit float. 48 KHz is high enough to
> protect against the Nyquist issue and for production there are
> advantages, when using a high bit rate and floating point.
> What benefit should there be, when using 192KHz?
No offense but it's always the people with little-to-no experience &
knowledge that seem to think they know what's
right/good/proper/correct/enough. There's no shortage of
bedroom/google "pros" that like to argue with the real ones who do it
for a living. You have to realize that there's far more than nyquist
in play. At the very least you need to consider the source signal,
what kind of processing needs to be done, and how it will be delivered
sonically in post. Audio can be manipulate in scores of different ways
and the different methods & algorithms used to do so perform at
different levels. In other words, what works well at X may not be as
efficient or produce the same results at Y. In laymans terms there is
not a one-size-fits-all anything when it comes to audio (the same
being true for video as well).
More information about the freebsd-multimedia