why high sampling rate when microphones and monitors can'treproduce it ???

[Paul Turpin]

Well then - lets steer this conversation back to the frequencies we can't hear.
To summarize and get back on track
Would you guys say the benefits of the higher sampling rates are :

a. being able to record any sounds that our analog sources create above our hearing range
b. the ability to use digital processing that runs well above 48 kHz sampling rate so as not to screw up sounds we accurately recorded under 24 kHz
c. merely moving the filters up above where they can do any harm
d. All of the above
e. ______________ (fill in the blank)

[maxserg]

For me this is marketting!

For shure you have better interfaces today, but this is NOT the reason to go higher sampling rates, well not that much for the hype!

Redesigned analog preamps with class A design, much more stable clock for lower jitter great care for AD and DA then you have a "better" converter,

Only for the higher sampling rate I don't think there is much difference "Within the same converter"

For fun test the same converter at 44,1K ant then at 88.2 an then... ad nauseam!

And THERE IS THE TEST and please give me some feedback: compare 44.1 interfaces(HD) withe the old ones(888/24) to 44.1Khz.

COMPARE THE SAME STUFF in the same contitions!!!

DON'T PLAY THE DIGI'S MARKETTING GAME.

I'm shure they have better interfaces now, but please see that through the same sampling freq..

Don't scramble the commonsense. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Paul Turpin]

maxserg - I was trying to get this conversation back on topic and your opinionated comments are beside the point. This thread is trying to answer vudoo's original question
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR> but what about our everyday microphones and monitors that we use ?? i mean if you look at the specs of those beast ...none of them ever goes higher than 30 Khz <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
take your bitching about digi to another thread. I'm tired of reading the same anti-digi complaints in responses unrelated to the thread at hand (and its not just you which is why I'm bothering to complain back. Also - its not just Digi pushing 96kHz on us - its the whole pro audio industry - from Consumer DVD players right up to Sony ultra high end stuff. Do you think every digital gear manufacturer out there is full of it? If so - go back to analog. If you can't hear a difference with 96kHz don't use it. We are trying to talk recording theory here - not bitching about marketing.

Yes - I am frustrated with people who feel the need to vent their anger in posts. Serious calm discussion is all I have time for.

[Greg Malcangi]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>a. being able to record any sounds that our analog sources create above our hearing range
b. the ability to use digital processing that runs well above 48 kHz sampling rate so as not to screw up sounds we accurately recorded under 24 kHz
c. merely moving the filters up above where they can do any harm
d. All of the above
e. ______________ (fill in the blank) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer: c & e, where e = simpler math for plugins (@96kS/s), resulting in fewer artifacts especially when stacking up plugs.

Greg

[Paul Turpin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR> c & e, where e = simpler math for plugins (@96kS/s), resulting in fewer artifacts especially when stacking up plugs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's what I meant by answer B - plug-ins that don't damage your audio. But thanks.

[AE]

There is at least one other potential benefit from higher sampling frequencies: tighter localization in multichannel reproduction.