Originally Posted by Studio ManCave
Why would you buy a computer not capable of 96K? And if you can't hear a difference does it mean others should take your advice for it?
i expect that's software dependent not computer dependent, yes? my daw does 384 kHz. crazy. i can't figure out why you would ever use that. just saying.
you know, i really should do a quasi scientific test with 44.1 48 and 96.1 then get back to you. i do know i can still hear to 19.5k at age 40. did a lot of ear training where i could reliably pick out 1/3 octave bands by name. i tend to hear things like dog fences and pest deterrents. to bad good hearing doesn't make good engineering. :( some of those guys who only hear to 16k can probably run circles around me.
i don't want him to take my word for it. i want him to listen and see if he hears a benefit.
If you move the filters higher(96K) you will reveal more "artifacts" and the normal hearing range is 20Hz-20kHz so whatever is outside that range will not audible to you. All the "artifacts" up from 20kHz are outside of peoples hearing...
the idea is that bad or extreme filters kick artifacts down into the audible range. bob katz has a good section on this in mastering audio. so the advantage to 96k isn't the added frequencies it's about making the filter less intrusive.
for example, if you record at 44.1 you need a filter at 44.1. well according to the nyquist theorem your frequency range is 20k...right at the end of human hearing. so you have a very steep filter very close to the audible range kicking down artifacts.
i'm not doing bob katz any justice here but that's the jist.
The other thing is... you need an interface if you record at 48K. You even need an interface at 44K, imagine that...
what i said: the other thing is...if you are recording you need an interface to support 96k. i expect many would these days.
just didn't want the guy to forget that point. some interfaces may not support 96k.
48K will save you storage and dsp but with that budget(2800$) you should be able to get a computer that allows you to work with whatever samplerate and bit depth you choose, not just what you're limited to.
and he may get in some work at higher sample rates...
I would personally go with mac but they are extremely pricey...
I would suggest RME for your budget. They are very reliable and solid and most of all they sound excellent.
+1. I like mine and it does support 96k
Chris, I mean no disrespect but your post really does not make any sense. It's as if you're saying "get an atari, I've had it and it works".
wow, first name basis and i didn't even buy you a drink. :D
just my 2 cents on the cost/value of working in 96k. i should have said i'm not opposed to having the option. doesn't most software and hardware support 96k now anyway?