docbob wrote: > Gracious acceptance of your own fallibility is not your strong suit on > any forum, is it? >
How would you know? > > I always respond with "oops, thanks for pointing that out", not a > childish attack rant with the admission embedded deep within. FYI, there > is no "oops" about my post 9, because you point out no errors, just > amusingly, flailingly shadow box. > Really? You've missed any number of opportunities to do so lately as you have had to be corrected on many points. Besides, the minor math error does not change the important point. If I record a good sized multitracked musical work 16/44 I end up with a large, awkward, but still somewhat manageable set of files running about 11 GB. Not bad to store as storage is cheap, but loading and saving audio files this size is already time consuming. Of course most people who advocate high sample rates have never actually had to struggle with this sort of thing. If I follow the well meaning but mistaken advice given by certain people on this forum, and record at 24/192 I bloat the files for the same musical work to about 60 GB, which is large enough that there is no longer enough room for multiple generations of the files on any but the largest storage units. Processing now takes six times longer, which can run into large fractions of an hour, and yields no audible benefits. And that is just for loading and saving files. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
