View Single Post
Old 01-27-2017, 03:07 AM   #69
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 74,218
Karma: 317184274
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
Actually, 24/96 is better for editing. That's why most digital recordings are recorded at 24/96.
Did you actually read the last bit you quoted, where Katsunami actually wrote "anything above 16/44.1 is useless except for editing."

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
That's pure BS. The audio beyond 20khz is not going to audibly hurt the sound you can hear. That article is a load of rubbish and really should go away. There are audible benefits to 24/96 over 16/44.1.
Have you actually played the ultrasonic samples through your sound system? The article argues that since most amplifiers aren't designed for ultrasonic frequencies, the ultrasonic components generate false tones in the audible spectrum. If your sound system is doing things right, you should hear nothing. Anything you hear is noise introduced by the amplifiers/speakers.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote