On 11/1/06 6:38 PM, "aaron" <aaron@cirruscirrus.com> wrote: > I've recorded several tracks at 192k and really don't notice any > difference in the quality of the audio files compared to lower sample > rates. The jump from 16 to 24-bit is noticeable. > I would like to dither down my 192k audio files to 44.1 but am not > able to figure out a practical solution. I could bounce the tracks > then convert and reimport them, but I was hoping to be able to do it > in the audio window with out having to export then reimport. > > I would appreciate any insight to this along with general thoughts on > to 192k or not to 192k. I understand that 44.1 is twice the human ear > perception so would anything above this be perceived? > > cheers > > Aaron > > Hi Aaron Actually, the sampling rate is divided in half to get the frequency response. So, 44.1 KHz sampling rate works out to 22.05 KHz frequency response. That should be more than any human ear can hear at any rate, especially mine, which have lost a bit off the top over the years. Audiophiles will tell you they need super tweeters that produce 40 KHz, and some people will claim they hear the difference with really high sampling rates ­ there is a lot of hocus pocus around audio fidelity issues....maybe people are really hearing these things or maybe they aren¹t, I¹ll admit I¹m a bit of a skeptic. BUT Microphone choice and placement, recording and mixing acoustics, monitor speakers, mixing techniques, quality of instruments (real or sampled) intonation, general good ears.....oh yeah, and good players and good music! I think all of those things would make way more difference to your projects than recording at 192k. Blair -- blairfisher@shaw.ca