It's not simply a matter of audible frequencies, it's more about the number of audio 'snapshots' taken in a second. 44.1 is 44,100 'snapshots' per second and makes up what falls between the cracks (to be a more than a little simplistic!), whereas 96k takes 96,000 snapshots per second - less information is 'made up' and a thicker, richer timbre (dare I say more analog sounding?) is potentially available. Of course the listening environment argument can negate a lot of the need for this. Regards, Matt -- Matt Kain matt@m...

For those who also work in graphics, the easiest analogy I can think of is that it's akin to image resolution - you may not neccessarily hear the difference at the outset of recording (think: when you first scan an image), but the greater resolution allows for greater flexibiliy later during any processing (think: enlarging the image, etc.). > -----Original Message----- > It's not simply a matter of audible frequencies, it's more about the > number > of audio 'snapshots' taken in a second.

I agree. It is striking the difference in 3d image depth in an analog master vs a DAT master of an analog project. I am hoping that the higher sampling frequencies and bit depths will come close to adding that back. Lars H ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Kain <matt@m...> To: <logic-users@onelist.com> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [LUG] RE 96KHz sample rate > From: "Matt Kain" <matt@m...> > > It's not simply a matter of audible frequencies, it's more about the number > of audio 'snapshots' taken in a second. > > 44.1 is 44,100 'snapshots' per second and makes up what falls between the > cracks (to be a more than a little simplistic!), whereas 96k takes 96,000 > snapshots per second - less information is 'made up' and a thicker, richer > timbre (dare I say more analog sounding?) is potentially available. > > Of course the listening environment argument can negate a lot of the need > for this. > > Regards, > Matt > > -- > Matt Kain > matt@m... > > >

>From: "Matt Kain" <matt@m...> > >It's not simply a matter of audible frequencies, it's more about the number >of audio 'snapshots' taken in a second. > >44.1 is 44,100 'snapshots' per second and makes up what falls between the >cracks (to be a more than a little simplistic!), whereas 96k takes 96,000 >snapshots per second - less information is 'made up' and a thicker, richer >timbre (dare I say more analog sounding?) is potentially available. > >Of course the listening environment argument can negate a lot of the need >for this. Ok, and you can have a low SR, and an high oversampling rate, and you get very good results also with 44.1K. In fact, the 96K is a consumer SR, not a professional one. Sampling is not only a matter of SR. Paolo Paolo Tramannoni Via M.L.King, 6/A - 62017 Porto Recanati (Mc) - Italy Phone: +39-071-7591268 - 0347-8177569 - Fax: +39-071-7591268 E-Mail: p.tram@f... - tramannoni@k...

On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Paolo Tramannoni wrote: > From: Paolo Tramannoni <p.tram@f...> > > >From: "Matt Kain" <matt@m...> > > > >It's not simply a matter of audible frequencies, it's more about the number > >of audio 'snapshots' taken in a second. > > > >44.1 is 44,100 'snapshots' per second and makes up what falls between the > >cracks (to be a more than a little simplistic!), whereas 96k takes 96,000 > >snapshots per second - less information is 'made up' and a thicker, richer > >timbre (dare I say more analog sounding?) is potentially available. This is a common misconception of digital recording - audio is not "made up" - it's reconstructed without any guesswork involved. 96k only lets you record higher frequencies (which is debatable if we can hear them anyway). 96k also can reduce quantization noise (since it's partially spread out into a range we can't hear), but you get more improvement from raising the bit rate. Another factor is sum and difference tones, but I'm not really convinced these make much of a difference. Much of the improvement you'll hear in newer 96k converters is from them being newer and better designed, not from the extra frequencies. So yes, 96k can sound better, but it's got nothing to do with audio being "made up" or "slipping through the cracks." Mike _______________ Mike Connelly, Sound Designer mpc@n... / http://www.mcs.net/~mpc check out zzounds music: http://www.zzounds.com/index.music?f=2169