On 27 May 2013, at 21:23, Sampo Syreeni <de...@iki.fi> wrote: > 24/96 is already twice as much even as a non-shaped format, but perhaps has > to be chosen evenso if we want to be sure it's transparent; as the next > common format which includes both sufficient sampling rate and sufficiently > low self-noise to truly cover even the most nastiest of circumstances. If > nothing else, we can be fully sure nothing above that will *ever* be needed > even if we just treat it as a naively, TPDF-dithered, somewhat frequency > limited at the upper end channel.
One notable exception: pitch processing e.g. in a sampler when sort of "slow down" playback, or digital "spinning" of "disks" by DJs etc. Also, digital volume controls may benefit from higher than 20-bit word length. But one would think capture at 96/24 should cover 98% of all scenarios, particularly since DJs rarely spin chamber music. Different story with scientific recordings of sound, think bat or whale studies, but that an entirely different game. Sent from my mobile phone _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
