AHI uae.audio with up to 192KHz sample freq.

amiga · 28 May 2009, 09:33

Is it possible to write a new uae.audio whose sample frequency can be up to 192 KHz ?
192 KHz is the standard nowadays when it comes to recording audio.

Toni Wilen · 28 May 2009, 18:14

Perhaps but recording at 192KHz in Amiga-side feels pointless, just use some PC software

(seriously, my AHI replacement will happen someday...)

Photon · 17 March 2010, 14:53

192 KHz is not only stupid, but silly stupid. A few big studios in each country have mics, production equipment, rooms, cables and monitors that don't bring down the quality an order of magnitude. I dare any human to take 'the Pepsi blind test' and tell the difference between 48KHz and 192 KHz. When you need oscilloscopes to tell the difference between takes, you need to focus on more important stuff. If you've spent less than 8000 EUR on your mic, monitors and room, you don't fucking need it. So save some time and don't bother with that Toni

Maren · 17 March 2010, 20:47

Actually favoring 192khz is not stupid and it's indeed becoming the standard for digital recordings. See it like this, what would you rather use for a Photoshop project, the original lossless BMP or a lossy JPEG of the same image? naturally you would choose the BMP, because even when these ugly artifacts introduced by compression are hardly distinguishable sometimes, they can be greatly exacerbated after applying certain processes, subtracting from the overall quality of the final art, which may also require lossy compression before distribution, making matters worse.

Exactly the same happens with audio.

Frequencies beyond what's universally considered to be our hearing range may not be audible (depends on the person, some people really can hear more than others) but they can still be "felt" and that's one of the reasons analog recordings (virtually of "infinite" quality) tend to be genuinely perceived as superior when proper high-end equipment is employed.

Now 192khz on an Amiga? that I don't get, but I don't have anything against it either

r.cade · 18 March 2010, 01:35

http://www.hometracked.com/2007/02/0...h-of-accuracy/

28 May 2009, 09:33	#1
amiga Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Amiga_land Posts: 443	AHI uae.audio with up to 192KHz sample freq. Is it possible to write a new uae.audio whose sample frequency can be up to 192 KHz ? 192 KHz is the standard nowadays when it comes to recording audio.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
knoppix light e-uae no audio	sabbate	support.OtherUAE	0	15 January 2013 19:37
Using two voices for 56K sample/second audio output rate -- OCS -- No CPU or Copper	mc6809e	Coders. Asm / Hardware	2	28 January 2012 00:29
E-uae audio problem	lomdav	support.OtherUAE	0	27 August 2010 10:01
new AHI pages layout and AHI-archive	Bamiga2002	Amiga scene	12	20 December 2007 14:44
UAE and AHI with soundblaster mediator drivers?	ElectroBlaster	support.WinUAE	1	21 June 2002 22:12

28 May 2009, 18:14	#2
Toni Wilen WinUAE developer Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland Age: 49 Posts: 26,534	Perhaps but recording at 192KHz in Amiga-side feels pointless, just use some PC software (seriously, my AHI replacement will happen someday...)

17 March 2010, 14:53	#3
Photon Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Eksjö / Sweden Posts: 5,625	192 KHz is not only stupid, but silly stupid. A few big studios in each country have mics, production equipment, rooms, cables and monitors that don't bring down the quality an order of magnitude. I dare any human to take 'the Pepsi blind test' and tell the difference between 48KHz and 192 KHz. When you need oscilloscopes to tell the difference between takes, you need to focus on more important stuff. If you've spent less than 8000 EUR on your mic, monitors and room, you don't fucking need it. So save some time and don't bother with that Toni

17 March 2010, 20:47	#4
Maren Banned Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: * Posts: 567	Actually favoring 192khz is not stupid and it's indeed becoming the standard for digital recordings. See it like this, what would you rather use for a Photoshop project, the original lossless BMP or a lossy JPEG of the same image? naturally you would choose the BMP, because even when these ugly artifacts introduced by compression are hardly distinguishable sometimes, they can be greatly exacerbated after applying certain processes, subtracting from the overall quality of the final art, which may also require lossy compression before distribution, making matters worse. Exactly the same happens with audio. Frequencies beyond what's universally considered to be our hearing range may not be audible (depends on the person, some people really can hear more than others) but they can still be "felt" and that's one of the reasons analog recordings (virtually of "infinite" quality) tend to be genuinely perceived as superior when proper high-end equipment is employed. Now 192khz on an Amiga? that I don't get, but I don't have anything against it either

18 March 2010, 01:35	#5
r.cade Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Augusta, Georgia, USA Posts: 550	http://www.hometracked.com/2007/02/0...h-of-accuracy/

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)