Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution.
smithi at nimnet.asn.au
Thu Dec 6 18:13:55 UTC 2012
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:19:40 +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM, VDR User <user.vdr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
> > 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 the author points out, 24bit (or 32bit floats, as I use pre-mixdown)
and 96 or 192k are fine during production stages. His focus was on the
relative idiocy of using 24 bit or 192kHz for final product / download.
> Why should this be inappropriate? The article has a clear focus on the
> 24/192 topic and freebsd-multimedia@ is a place to discuss how FreeBSD
> should deal with this. IMHO there is nothing wrong with that.
Absolutely. I was really glad that Jakub posted it; it's appropriate to
work I'm doing and confirms in technical terms what I suspected anyway.
> In my opinion there is one answer: If the sound chip accepts 24/192,
> then our sound system should be able to use this capability.
More information about the freebsd-multimedia