From owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 6 16:27:37 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43031A4E for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:27:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from user.vdr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CB78FC18 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:27:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id s9so12669236iec.13 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:27:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=s7fGYgj6cHbQrwJj9HSlY79lzFdyARGj6khtvUEsfcc=; b=hX473mFvXAVG60ClUxcNyqjKBZGVIOLwyX0bAgK0oNN0GGSoZ74e720L+rpR3h/TA3 xRLAE06Ug04Eb8MJTI2w3lGZ2AFsb9u6wHo7h/Vx0W001SjhAj16LNLTbqCMq//y51q4 XCWRmyEleSpa2YELZWvpwoKeMLxJHXxMNaEgoSktSjVedIYS8z6IE6pEXnWUe7SgAq6N CE86my59t0pDT5sjvi24AQg57GzJsDr6yyDJl4KULJ0/WJg56W6XQzg//0wONL3XJitY K3k48dp74p2qJNM5X9TfQEDlql7ApI7Bivle8c3pq3IZU91/1yqrvBaoALDmcDnGWjCk Q+XQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.117.197 with SMTP id fn5mr1853015icc.7.1354811256215; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.111.71 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:27:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1354786833.6430.8.camel@q> References: <1354723094926-5766828.post@n5.nabble.com> <1354786833.6430.8.camel@q> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:27:36 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why 24/192kHz sound is not a solution. From: VDR User To: Ralf Mardorf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Multimedia discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:27:37 -0000 On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> I don't know that using the mailing list to post links to articles is >> appropriate, but 24/192 does matter when it comes to processing. As >> only a final output format, that article is completely correct but to >> completely disregard 24/192 is misleading because it does have benefit >> earlier in the production chain. > > I didn't read the article, I only read the mails. > You don't need more than 48KHz/32-bit float. 48 KHz is high enough to > protect against the Nyquist issue and for production there are > advantages, when using a high bit rate and floating point. > > What benefit should there be, when using 192KHz? No offense but it's always the people with little-to-no experience & knowledge that seem to think they know what's right/good/proper/correct/enough. There's no shortage of bedroom/google "pros" that like to argue with the real ones who do it for a living. You have to realize that there's far more than nyquist in play. At the very least you need to consider the source signal, what kind of processing needs to be done, and how it will be delivered sonically in post. Audio can be manipulate in scores of different ways and the different methods & algorithms used to do so perform at different levels. In other words, what works well at X may not be as efficient or produce the same results at Y. In laymans terms there is not a one-size-fits-all anything when it comes to audio (the same being true for video as well).