[Scott Dorsey]

James Price wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:54:22 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James Price wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you ultimately low-pass at 20 KHz, what's the advantage (if any) of
recording at 24/96 vs. 24/48, other than to appease the client?

There is none, but the client is happy and it sounds good. In the end,
those are really the only two important things ever.

In Mastering Audio, Bob Katz indicated that one benefit of higher sampling
rates (eg. 96 kHz) would be moving unwanted converter noise above the
audible frequency range, some of which is filtered out upon downsampling.
The main idea being that moving the filter cutoff to 48 kHz (for 96 kHz SR)
relaxes the filter requirement and makes it easier to design filters with less
ripple in the passband and less phase shift near the upper frequency limit.

This was absolutely critical back in 1985, and it was why you saw higher
rates used on things like the Mitsubishi recorders. But then we got
oversampling everywhere which did the same thing without having to record
at the higher rate. And then the whole world changed with sigma-delta
converters where the noise issues are totally different.

Any thoughts?

Thank God we don't deal with ladder converters that are barely able to keep
up with the sample rate and drift all over the place today. The sigma-delta
technology has made getting real linearity across a wide range far less
expensive and made brickwall filters a thing of the past. It was a real and
actual revolution.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."