View Single Post
  #7  
Old 31.01.2008, 01:56 PM
logo80's Avatar
logo80 logo80 is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 20.05.2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 354
Send a message via AIM to logo80 Send a message via MSN to logo80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onkel Dunkel View Post
I have the option of running 88,2 that some say is better than 96 kHz if you plan to downmix to CD quality (44,1 kHz, 16 bit) because half of 88,2 is 44,1 it will be devided by a nice even "2" instead of the more uneven devision of "2,176870748299319727891156462585". This will in your case mean that you devide by "1,0884353741496598639455782312925" instead of just doing it in 44,1 kHz from the start. It makes sence to me but still this is pure theory and i really don“t know if you will be able to hear the diffenrence. Still Doc is right when saying go to 24 or 32 bits instead of 16. This will give you a lot more than 48 kHz will...
Yes this is the theory... but I can assure you that 96 KHz is far better than 88.2, you practically have no aliasing cos there are only a few instruments with harmonics at those frequencies... and probably the aliasing would fall over the 22 KHz so you can't hear it.
__________________
http://www.synthaddicted.com
Reply With Quote