[LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: A list for linux audio users <Linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 10:17 am

Are there any advantages to using 96k (or 48k?) if the final target is
44.1k/16bit? I am thinking that tracking at 44.1k / 24 bit should be
more than sufficient for most (non-pro) purposes?

I read somewhere about higher bitrate being important for headroom for
audio processing plugins, but does samplerate also have an effect on
this?

James
_______________________________________________
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] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, James Stone, (Thu Feb 7, 10:17 am)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, James Stone, (Thu Feb 7, 10:33 am)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, Len Ovens, (Thu Feb 7, 4:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, James Stone, (Thu Feb 7, 4:14 pm)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, Len Ovens, (Thu Feb 7, 5:08 pm)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, Brent Busby, (Fri Feb 8, 1:06 am)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, James Stone, (Fri Feb 8, 7:10 am)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, Brent Busby, (Fri Feb 8, 7:15 pm)
Re: [LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?, Len Ovens, (Fri Feb 8, 2:05 pm)