Now higher sample rates have a use...By using a higher sample rate you are moving the aliasing and filter further above the audible range so this pitching down never becomes an issue.
True to a degree, but note that 96 kHz and even 192 kHz isn't enough oversampling for many kinds of processing. The bottom line is that if it's a high fidelity plug-in or process that needs frequency headroom, it will have its own oversampling built in, and the overall ample rate need not be more than 44.1/48 kHz.
wickfut said:
16 bit has a dynamic range of 120db. That means that it can go from silent to deafening (literally) in 65536 steps. Which is once again the full level a human can hear.
16-bit would be 96 dB (20-bit is 120 dB—6.02 dB per bit).
wickfut said:
When recording audio at 16 bit, to get the full dynamic range people generally set the loudest part of the music to 0db. But if any transient sound accidentally goes over that level it goes into clipping, which is digital distortion.
When recording, people usually use something like -12 to -18 dB for the loud parts, to allow room for transients. Now, they may compress the heck out of the mix during mastering, and set the peaks just under 0 dB ("loudness wars"), and I'm sure that's what you mean. Sure for something like that, 16 bits for the final product is fine. But if you want dynamics...
OK, for a typical passage of the music, you may be 12-18 dB down. For classical, you can have extended quiet passages, for which you need to allow a lot of headroom for some other point point in the music. Sixteen bits is only "all you'll ever want and need" under ideal circumstances. And, of course, during the recording phase 16-bit is unnecessarily restrictive. There, it's a no-brainer—a 50% increase in data for a huge increase in dynamic range and flexibility. For distribution, it's less important to have 24 bits in most cases, but again 24 bits does allow some flexibility, and again only costs another 50% (really, 20 bits would be plenty at only a 25% increase, but 24 bits is the practical choice for recording/mixing for obvious computer-related reasons, so…). Sure, for most pop songs you won't hear the difference. But it is a substantial win for the record/mix phase.
Higher sample rates, by comparison, are a terrible deal. Double the data rate for…theoretically nothing, although in practice it's implementation dependent and may be a slight improvement, or it may be worse.
wickfut said:
You only need 16/44.1 for audio playback. Any more than that and you're going beyond the level of what your ears can handle.
So, while I can agree with you that 44.1 is sufficient for playback, I'd only agree on 16 bit "for the majority of cases" or similar disclaimer.
