Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution.

Ian Smith 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.


cheers, Ian

More information about the freebsd-multimedia mailing list