Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution.
user.vdr at gmail.com
Fri Dec 7 01:13:58 UTC 2012
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au> 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 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.
It isn't a matter of being "fine" or not. It's a matter of whether or
not you need it based on your source material and/or to achieve
particular results. There is a very big difference between that and
what you're implying. Additionally, if you don't understand why or
when 24/192 is needed, then you also don't understand why or when it
> > 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.
An article about whether or not 24/192 has purpose (in whatever
application..meaning usage, not software) has nothing to do with
pointing out that support for it is missing/not implemented. I can't
imagine why anyone would confuse that.
> > 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.
That is the actual subject here and I'm sure most people would agree
to the above. At least I hope so!
More information about the freebsd-multimedia