linuxaudio.org

fons@kokkinizita.net wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:06:23PM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote:

>

>> On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 20:41 +0100, Karl Hammar wrote:

>>

>>> So, 24bit, 48/96kHz is the spec. to aim at?

>>>

>> If you happen to sit on a warehouse full of them, otherwise 192kHz is

>> priced the same these days.

>

> But take into account that 192 kHz is the same

> type of marketing scam as gold-plated optical

> connectors. In other words completely useless.

i thought the same, until i happened upon the website of a bat fancier

who is recording his favourite animals with a pimped condenser mic with

extended hf response, and then either uses the sonographic "voiceprints"

to differentiate between species, or pitch-shifts the bat sounds into

the audible range. quite fascinating.
and it makes me think of david monacchi, that italian prof who played

his rainforest archival recordings at the ambi symposium in graz - for

those applications, it might actually make sense (iff you can get that

extended hf out of your signal chain, without excessive radio

interference - a rainforest should be a relatively rf-friendly

environment, if your colleagues keep their mobiles off...)
but yes, for human baseband use, with standard equipment (especially as

a selling proposal in the consumer market), 192kHz remains utter hogwash...

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev