Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Len Ovens <len@...>
Cc: linux audio users <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 - 10:03 pm

On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 08:37:11PM -0800, Len Ovens wrote:

> On Sun, January 6, 2013 5:55 pm, Ralph Bluecoat wrote:

48 kHz is the standard rate in audio broadcasting as well, apart from
TV and movies.

Something like 25-30 years ago,when I was working at BRT, the Belgian
public radio/TV network, the first radio studios were being converted
to digital. All 48 kHz, even if the only digital signals at that time
were from the CD players - they were just resampled before entering
the mixer (this required an expensive 1U rack equipment for each CD
player, don't remember the type or brand). DAT players were only added
later.

About a year later the music studios went digital, again all 48 kHz.
Can't could the number of CDs I mixed there.

Even that long ago 44.1 kHz was considered 'legacy', an unfortunate
compromise made for pragmatic reasons when the CD format was defined.
There's really no reason why it should still be used today.

Ciao,

--
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Sun Jan 6, 11:54 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Ralph Bluecoat, (Mon Jan 7, 1:56 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 4:37 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Jan 7, 10:03 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Alf Haakon Lund, (Mon Jan 7, 5:01 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 9:34 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, David Olofson, (Sun Jan 6, 11:17 pm)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Len Ovens, (Mon Jan 7, 3:16 am)
Re: [LAU] 48k vs. 44.1k, Neil, (Sun Jan 6, 8:18 pm)