Eric Seaberg;166852 Wrote: > I do know there's an OPTION to rip at 48kHz, but you're wasting > bandwidth!
Sorry! I misunderstood you. I thought you were being puzzled - ie "there shouldn't be an option" meaning "what's this about an option? Where are you seeing it? There shouldn't be one there" because that's the way I'd probably have phrased it myself (to be gentle!) but in fact you were saying "this option is silly because there's no point in it and it should not be there". Which is fair enough. A little touch of ambiguity in the night! Eric Seaberg;166852 Wrote: > Since the original was at 44.1kHz and has a 'brick-wall' filter at > 20kHz, there's NO reason to re-sample (rip) at anything other than the > original 44.1kHz... THERE'S NOTHING THERE!! You're just making the > file LARGER for no reason (please excuse the CAPS, but I'm hoping it > makes a point). There's no need to shout, you know! I know very well already that this is all perfectly correct. However, I thought when I wrote that I remembered seeing some debate about the matter somewhere recently and thought I'd better mention it even if it doesn't make sense (and even if I certainly can't tell the difference and don't quite see how, logically, anyone could.) Eric Seaberg;166852 Wrote: > .......As far as transferring from vinyl, if you're planning on putting > the final product on CD, you're still better off recording at 44.1k or > 88.2k. If your record at 48k then SRC down to 44.1k, the math involved > is not as easy to accomplish as if going from 88.2 to 44.1. Of course > this also depends on whose SRC you're using. > > I still offer the best option of keeping it at 44.1kHz if that's your > final product, yet record at 24-bit whenever possible. Yes, of course this is true if one wants to record to CD subsequently, but if the main use of the material is to put it through a sound card (or external DAC - or a Squeezebox?) then, and again correct me if I'm wrong, isn't 48kHz actually quite a good thing because many sound cards surreptitiously work on that rate? And yes, as far as I'm concerned it's iTunes' inability to rip at 24 bit that is its biggest drawback. Eric Seaberg;166852 Wrote: > I've been in the mastering/recording business since 1971 and have tried > and tested it all. TRUST ME!! Well, you know, I did absolutely until that moment, but now you've really me suspicious. Now I'm thinking: so what have you got to hide, and when's the sucker punch coming? Geraint. PS. Do I need to add this? ;^) -- geraint smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------ geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31176 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
