Arny Is Not Listening.
"TT" wrote in message
"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
Bret Ludwig wrote:
We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
will but use it.
I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording
studios use 24/96 and now 192 as well.
That they have the capability is a slam dunk. Do they use it? I suspect that
a lot of work, most work, is being done at lower sample rates. The word is
out. Well-known quality-conscious recording engineers like Katz and
Massenburg have said that going higher than 44 KHz has no audible benefits,
in their experience.
One of the dirty little secrets of the failed introductions of SACD and
DVD-A was the fact that a lot of the recordings they distributed were
actually based on masters that were sampled at 44 or 48 KHz. Higher sample
rate masters simply did not exist.
I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time
now. So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.
Heck, I use 32 bits for mixing, but that's a different issue.
In fact it is practically impossible to create an audio signal from an
acoustical source under the most favorable conditions in a real-world studio
or concert hall that has more than about 13 bits resolution. There are just
too many sources of incidental noise, starting with the musicians
themselves.
|