View Single Post
  #31  
Old 09-02-2018, 11:13 PM
rick-slo's Avatar
rick-slo rick-slo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 13,895
Default

My comment about Nika's book was a direct quote from the book. Another quote: "There is not an audible benefit to capturing the material above 20kHz in a recording in any way". However Nika also talks about the accuracies of digital filters which may not be of brick wall quality, especially so in earlier years, and therefore you may get higher frequencies aliasing artifacts into the audible range. For that reason for a margin I usually record at 24 bit 88.2 kilohertz (not 48 kilohertz, because I am going to end up with a 44.1/16 wave file and the SRC is more precise mathematically than going from 48 to 44.1) However even so I would not say with my gear that I
can actually hear a difference between 44.1 and 88.2 recordings in the DAW. Also all the mikes I record with have frequency responses that drop well down much above
20 kilohertz.

As far as the pictures shown there would obviously be more data points recording at a higher sample rate but those data points would reflect a greater inclusion of higher frequencies beyond the range of human hearing in 20 to 22 kilohertz range and plus additional aliasing artifacts inherited from up to about 24 kilohertz.

I bought and read Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio" (second edition) some time ago. Detailed hands on info. Less detailed and info on the specifics of these last few posts.
__________________
Derek Coombs
Website -> Music -> Tabs -> and Youtube
Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs
Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love
To be that we hold so dear
A voice from heavens above

Last edited by rick-slo; 09-13-2018 at 08:49 AM.
Reply With Quote