Quote:
Originally posted by arimaka
I understand 100% what you are stating... But with 96khz you do capture a little more than 88.2khz.
From what I understood from Bob Catz... With old sample rate converters it was a problem because they weren't accurate enough. Now with newer sample rate converters you simply take a better picture with 96khz and then convert. I believe that's what most mastering engineer's do... Brad??? maybe you can come in on this one...
Mastering Engineer's take it back to analog and process the signal. Then bring it to digital on a great A/D at high sample rates and then downsample... right???
I'm just trying to pitch in... |
Yeah, but for certain types of music 88.2khz is a tighter sound then 96khz(which is at times too loose). Its almost like the difference betweeen 44.1khz and 98khz.