Eric Seaberg wrote: > IMHO, 88.2 is a stupid SR to use anyway and it's only because of > laziness on the original mix engineer thinking conversion from 88.2 to > 44.1 is easier. That may have been the case 6-7 years ago, but not > anymore. There is no reason higher SR recordings shouldn't standarize > at 96k or 192k. Hi, Eric. Re: your laziness point ....... when in studio, I had it explained to me, that when prepping for redbook distribution, they used 88.2 over 96 not because they were lazy but because doing so employed 1 less stage of filtering/processing and therefore was deemed sonically superior since less processing meant lower phase and frequency response distortions.
Procedurally, if they had source material recorded at 96kHz they had to, first, upsample it to (IIRC) 14.12MHz and then SRC it down to 44.1kHz. If the source material was recorded at 88.2kHz (or any multiple of 44.1kHz) then they could straight to 44.1kHz in 1 stage. The belief being that the less number of stages of filtering/processing that is being used on the signal, the better the results! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pneumonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10091 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94260 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
