Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind
Trevor . I do not think you or anybody posting in this thread has even remotely forwarded the notion that higher sample rate can make a bad recording better.
Dan Lavry "Although 60 KHz would be closer to the ideal; given the existing standards, 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz are closest to the optimal sample rate."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young
I could imagine (no basis for this, just wildly guessing) that a higher sample rate might work better for some plugins and other digital manipulations where accumulated errors might play a role. Same with using 32 bits or 64 bits internally, and so on. Sometimes I think I prefer the sound of 88/96 to lower rates, but logically, I know I can't hear it and would never pass a blind test. In any case, this is definitely in the "I think someone might be able to hear it, or at least imagine it?" category, not "wow, that recording sounds better". So I don't think it plays much of a role in understanding how to get a good sound.
|
I certainly hope my original question doesn't sound like I'm saying. "Hey, you guys are making great sounding recordings and it's gotta be your Sample Rate and Bit Depth, so come on guys, give up the big secret!" I am, however; curious as to the various settings and levels people use who are getting consistently good home recording results. In light of the Dan Lavry assertion I'll try a higher sample rate and see if I can hear a difference and when I get to the point where it matters I may borrow from the wisdom imparted by Psalad re: what people are prepared to pay for (lol). BTW - I love the Neil Young allusion.
This has turned out to be a fascinating thread and I'm grateful to everyone who has taken the time to share their knowledge and experience.