192khz .. playback fidelity lower than 44.1khz?

[Tony Scharf]

Ive gone 24/48 (since my music will never be on CD) and I can
definitely tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit.  The 48/44.1 is
virtually indistinguishable, but I use the 48 because I can digitally
hook up my FX processors that run at that internally.

I think having everything digital start to finish makes the biggest
impact, obvious as it is.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Andrew Robinson <andrew at bml.co.uk> wrote:
> I was talking about this with a studio owner a few years back. After a
> heavy session on A/B testing the first few 24/96 converters on the
> market, he'd come to the opinion that after 20 years of practice, the
> industry had got very good at making good sounding 16/44.1 kit, and
> that the 24/96 stuff needed a good few years to get up to speed. He
> could definitely tell the difference, but he didn't like it, comparing
> it to the awful high-end heavy mastering on the earliest CDs.
>
> - Andy_R
> _______________________________________________
> music-bar mailing list
> music-bar at lists.music-bar.org
> http://lists.music-bar.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/music-bar



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NoiseTheorem:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NoiseTheorem
myspace:http://www.myspace.com/noisetheorem
soundcloud:http://soundcloud.com/noisetheorem