__
From: andy butler akbut...@tiscali.co.uk
To: lute-cs.dartmouth.edu lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2013 5:26 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Recording the lute, Part 1, sample rate
Tobiah wrote:
It's a common misconception that 88.2 is somehow easier to re
Tobiah wrote:
It's a common misconception that 88.2 is somehow easier to re-sample down
to 44.1. I suppose people think that the software can just throw away
every other sample, but the algorithm even in this case is far more
complex.
It really is simpler.
Filter out all frequencies above
David wrote:
I will be writing a guide in installments for my website on how to
record the lute.
This is very welcome news indeed! Many thanks for the first installment. I
can't wait to read the next following ones.
Stephen Arndt
To get on or off this list see list information at
Sample rate
Why start with the sample rate?
In a recording, you need to start at the end and work backwards. If
you record at the CD sampling rate of 44.1Khz, that's not only not
ideal, it is not ideal for the internet.
So most recordings are recorded in the wrong container, and although
you
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
I suggest you google ABX, get the software, and
blindly compare sample rates above 44.1kHz. Then
do the same for various bitrate .mp3's and FLAC.
On 11/7/2013 4:04 PM, David Tayler wrote:
snip
44.1kHz is fine for most things. 96k is great too, if you're one of the one's
that think that
, November 7, 2013 5:57 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Recording the lute, Part 1, sample rate
On 11/7/2013 4:04 PM, David Tayler wrote:
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
