Guitar | Bass | Keyboard | Microphones | Mixers | Audio Interfaces | Sequencers & Software Plugins | Live Sound & PA | Drums | Club & DJ | Accessories | Blowouts
part of TweakHeadz
"A Community for Recording Studio Professionals and Apprentices"
Guide • |
The primary motivation for this article is to help dispel the wide spread misconceptions regarding sampling of audio at a rate of 192 kHz.
>I'm hoping you'll agree with me though that a lot of new hardware is being marketed with respect to how high a sample rate they can provide and that less informed people buy into the statement ("myth?") that higher is better.
I'll probably catch some flack for this statement but, per the Samply Theorem, all you really need is 44.1 kHz.
I'm hoping you'll agree with me though that a lot of new hardware is being marketed with respect to how high a sample rate they can provide and that less informed people buy into the statement ("myth?") that higher is better.
Hybridrummer wrote:If you are looking at catching a better 'picture' of the original waveform, a higher sampling rate is your next step.
Hybridrummer wrote:The conclusions are even almost exactly the same...perhaps you just forgot to give credit?...or you are Dan Lavry
Hybridrummer wrote:common sense and logic both point one to come to the conclusion that taking more slices of the cake actually get you closer to the cake as a whole. There might be some technical exceptions that I am not aware of hidden in the development of Nyquists Theorm, so if anyone knows what those might be, please enlighten everyone so no more confusion gets spread about Nyquists's Theorm, which seems to be the remaining issue.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests