My personal stance on this issue is that 16bit to 24bit has more of a noticeable improvement than the high sampling rates, like 192k. I don't mind HDtracks 24-96k downloads though, if the recordings are properly remastered. But, many of their offerings are questionable. In the end, I think 24-96k is fine for most acoustic music, like jazz, folk and classical. But, for many rock or popular music recordings, I think 24-48k works very well and sounds really good to my ears. Regarding file space, roughly speaking, a thirty minute 24-192k file we be slightly over a gig...where as a thirty minute 24-48k file will be around 350MB. With all this said though, I think capturing music and working on it in the digital domain, with high sampling rates, is generally a good idea. I just think offering 192k stereo recordings is overkill for most listeners and is a way to charge more money. I say all this listening on Krell amps with Thiel speakers, along with AKG headphones. In the end, all that matters is what we personally like to our ears at any given moment.
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:22:32 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
This should get the conversations flowing again! Although I know this territory was covered recently, this article may not have been read by some.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No comments:
Post a Comment