Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:00:29 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Thomas Zander <thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution. Message-ID: <20121207045002.V24050@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <CAFU734wQ0YikLwhCE5%2Bhri7W5V1pHhZWk1tVgbhgD299wvi9Mw@mail.gmail.com> References: <1354723094926-5766828.post@n5.nabble.com> <CAA7C2qjCbe_yJMCpKFj67aXtSBiWC%2BGwHMkACcerUGB3bWo1pg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFU734wQ0YikLwhCE5%2Bhri7W5V1pHhZWk1tVgbhgD299wvi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:19:40 +0100, Thomas Zander wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM, VDR User <user.vdr@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html > > > > 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 the author points out, 24bit (or 32bit floats, as I use pre-mixdown) and 96 or 192k are fine during production stages. His focus was on the relative idiocy of using 24 bit or 192kHz for final product / download. > Why should this be inappropriate? The article has a clear focus on the > 24/192 topic and freebsd-multimedia@ is a place to discuss how FreeBSD > should deal with this. IMHO there is nothing wrong with that. Absolutely. I was really glad that Jakub posted it; it's appropriate to work I'm doing and confirms in technical terms what I suspected anyway. > In my opinion there is one answer: If the sound chip accepts 24/192, > then our sound system should be able to use this capability. Surely. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121207045002.V24050>