In Reply to: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) posted by Michi on April 9, 2003 at 01:07:00:
>> I just wish that there had been a 384/24 spec. heh. <<Did you mean 384kHz/32bit? That sort of spec is mainly of real benefit only within the recording chain itself (i.e. during mixing & DSP processing) to minimise any mathematical errors so there is insignificant signal degradation to the final 24bit output which the consumer hears.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) - Martin 04:48:56 04/09/03 (9)
- I thought Samsung offered that up as a spec originally... - Michi 12:25:50 04/09/03 (1)
- yes - Joe Murphy Jr 17:52:08 04/09/03 (0)
- Resolution - RdH 10:29:59 04/09/03 (4)
- Re: Resolution - John Kotches 05:32:27 04/13/03 (2)
- Re: Resolution - RdH 12:59:12 04/13/03 (1)
- Re: Resolution - John Kotches 16:08:29 04/13/03 (0)
- Re: Resolution - Frank 10:46:15 04/09/03 (0)
- I too, had thought above 192 there was no audible difference.? nt - Duilawyer 07:07:39 04/09/03 (1)
- Yep. . . . And some 'golden ears' would also apply that to anything above 96kHz . {n.t.} - Martin 09:16:14 04/09/03 (0)