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

[Park Seward]

Most of the benefits comes from moving the antialias filter out of the range of human hearing so any foldback components will not be audible.

Other than that, not much gain. And some would argue that a well designed filter can do all that is necessary with 44.1 sampling.

Then there's marketing!!!

[Haniel Trisna]

Says who ? I can definitely hear it. I suggest for you to go beyond specs and try for yourself. Find an HD studio and record some tracks with the 192 I/O at 96khz and at 44.1 khz. I defintely heard the difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by vudoo:
I've been following this whole high sampling rate threads with great interest. There seems to be as many pors as cons regarding the benifit of high sampling when it comes to mixing, plugins design...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 !!Nika ???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[vudoo]

my interest is more in " capturing " asoppose to DSP processing....so, again, what is the benifit of recording at 96/192 when the mic you use only tops at 30...same for the monitor that you use to listen back ???

[chris67]

192 might get closer to analog recording perhaps ??

[usinare]

listen don't read numbers. This is audio.

[vudoo]

Guys, i KNOW that spec is one thing and real life is another BUT try telling that to your " want to be " tech head clients...so again can someone please tell me WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF RECORDING IN 96/192 WHEN YOUR MIC ONLY TOPS AT 30 or LESS...SAME FOR YOUR MONITORS !!!

[Ulf Kruckenberg]

vudoo,
Your question has already been answered above by mr. Park Seward.
If you want learn more about antialias filtering effects/deffects on the audible frequencyband you can find more here on the DUC and elsewere.

[JNS]

(Sorry about the long post here)

Vudoo, I would say that Park Seward's comments were right on the money. Most of this stuff about having to have all of the very high sampling rates is really somewhat a bunch of hooey in the practical world. Most clients couldn't care less. Just look at where most music is listened to. Certainly not in a controlled environment listening back and forth comparing playbacks (which in most cases are not even valid A/B tests)to detect some minute differences that might not even show up on a different playback system. And the comments about "forget the numbers, just listen"....well there seems to be a disturbing trend towards this mindset. Just remember, this equipment couldn't even be designed if it weren't for numbers-based theory. Bottomline, specs are important if they are valid and listed correctly. Remember, these companies, Digi, to name one, are in the business to sell equipment.

A good analogy would be the synthesizer market. Most people that I've observed who buy one don't even use the majority of the wonderful and abundant programming features, if any at all. Just so the factory presets sound cool, they're happy. But all that feature-marketing sure helps sell those synths.

These comments are not meant to slam anybody on here since everyone has the right to their own opinions. These are just mine from having been in the business a long time.

And, before anybody jumps on me for advocating mediocrity, etc. I will just say that I am for technical advancement until it starts to reach the point of diminishing returns from a business standpoint. Especially when it starts involving, in our case, too-quick obsolescence, spending lots of money for equipment and spending more and more time on backups, etc. because of all the extra data being recorded and stored.

Hey, I'd love to have a top-of-the-line Ferrari to go to the studio, but I don't think the current speedlimits warrant the expense. But, I sure would feel good in it, though. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Jeff

[Paul Turpin]

I agree with most of the respondents that much of the point of higher sampling rates lies in keeping our digital processing and mixing from screwing up our well recorded audio.

However - there are microphones and micpres worthy of these numbers -

Like the Sennheiser
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>MKH 800-P48
Technical Data :

Acoustic principle Variable-pattern
Pick-up pattern Omni-directional, wide cardioid, cardioid, super- cardioid, or figure-of-eight
Frequency response 30 - 50,000 Hz
Sensitivity (free field, no load) 40 mV/Pa
Nominal impedance 150 Ohm
Minimum terminating impedance 1000 ohm
Max. sound pressure level at 1 kHz (136) dB
Phantom power supply (p 48, Din 45 596) 48 +/- 4 V
Supply current 3 mA
Dimensions 1.08” x 7.04”
Weight 4.7 oz. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that a 96kHz system is designed to reproduce 48kHz and below - the mic above will respond to frequencies that 96kHz will miss!

[lagasus]

Rupert Neve for one, believes that it is critical that frequency response of audio gear extends FAR beyond 20kHz. I believe that his designs extend at least into the 100kHz(?) range. He claims that it has a palpable effect on the way things sound, and not just for 15 year old girls.