Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:40:33 +0100 From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution. Message-ID: <1354786833.6430.8.camel@q> In-Reply-To: <CAA7C2qjCbe_yJMCpKFj67aXtSBiWC%2BGwHMkACcerUGB3bWo1pg@mail.gmail.com> References: <1354723094926-5766828.post@n5.nabble.com> <CAA7C2qjCbe_yJMCpKFj67aXtSBiWC%2BGwHMkACcerUGB3bWo1pg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 09:47 -0800, VDR User wrote: > I don't know that using the mailing list to post links to articles is > appropriate, but 24/192 does matter when it comes to processing. As > only a final output format, that article is completely correct but to > completely disregard 24/192 is misleading because it does have benefit > earlier in the production chain. I didn't read the article, I only read the mails. You don't need more than 48KHz/32-bit float. 48 KHz is high enough to protect against the Nyquist issue and for production there are advantages, when using a high bit rate and floating point. What benefit should there be, when using 192KHz? Regards, Ralf
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1354786833.6430.8.camel>