snip
44.1kHz is fine for most things. 96k is great too, if you're one of the one's that think that that they can hear the difference. Try an ABX test before thinking that it's true for you. I agree however, that for very serious recording, a higher rate should be used. I don't think 44.1 is fine for lute as it removes too much high frequencies and is not optimum for internet. As for testing, I have tested . snip Mathematically, and in practice, 44.1 kHz is enough to accurately represent any frequency up to the Nyquist, or 220050, which is enough for most (all?) humans. Well, I think it is better to have more highs, Also the recommendation of AES, snip The analog to digital converter has a low-pass filter that prevents any frequencies from getting to it that would cause aliasing or artifacts. This is a place where a sample rate greater than 44100 is beneficial - the requirements for the filter are relaxed, and it doesn't have to be as steep, or have the possibility of affecting audible frequencies. I disagree. My test show 60 is optimum, and after that, it does not get better. snip 24 bit definitely has some advantages. The end result can be represented in 44.1kHz just fine, but recording in 24 bit allows one to be a little more sloppy setting levels, and grants more headroom during recording. We are talking about streaming the end product in 24 bits. snip I'm unclear as to how you would arrive at the 60kHz figure. By testing the different rates with a sample clock. snip FLAC is really great, but again, I challenge anyone to tell the difference between the much smaller 320kbps bit-rate .mp3 and FLAC or WAV. I like it! snip I totally agree. I use 96k/24-bit for this reason. Why not capture as much information as possible to archive for the future. 96/24 is OK, I prefer 48 24 but the differences are small. 96 has some marketing advantages. Can't go too far wrong with 96/24. dt To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
