Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution.

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at rocketmail.com
Wed Dec 12 23:01:22 UTC 2012

On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 08:27 -0800, VDR User wrote:
> 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.

I worked as a professional audio and video engineer, among others for
well known companies/artists. I never was missing anything at 48 KHz,
when using professional equipment. I started working professional in the
age of 16, today I'm 46 years old, not working in that business any
more, but I did for nearly 30 years.

My two TerraTec cards do sound better at 96 KHz than on 48 KHz, but even
consumer Aiwa and Sony DAT recorders do sound better at 48 KHz, than the
TerraTec at 96 KHz, not to mention outdated professional recorders did
use 48 KHz only. 

> 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,

What has the kind of processing to do with the sample rate? I guess for
the processing the bit depth and floating point are important.

> 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.

For example?


More information about the freebsd-multimedia mailing list