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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Len Ovens <len@...>
Cc: A list for linux audio users <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Friday, February 8, 2013 - 1:06 am

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Len Ovens wrote:

> On Thu, February 7, 2013 6:23 am, James Stone wrote:

That's the experience I've had here also with my RME Multiface II:

Despite that it's been regarded as a nice interface (and it is!), I've
found that it's *much* darker sounding at 44.1/48kHz, and only seems to
have full clarity in the treble at 96kHz. Since I really doubt that my
ears need the ultrasonic frequency response that desperately to get nice
treble, I'd say it's probably the filters, owing the effect you're
describing and others have mentioned in other threads in the past.

Some hardware isn't just 96kHz -- it's designed for it, and the filters
won't let it sound good any other way. If you have such an interface,
the sample rate question is already answered for you. You just have to
listen to it at the slower sample rates and see if it still sounds good.
If not, you may end up choosing 96kHz just because that's what your
audio interface's filters like.

--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
_______________________________________________
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)