2 ms·
Higher frequencies aren't even in most recordings, so we wouldn't have to re-record them for that reason. And if they were (such as in 96 kHz hi-res audio), yo
by photojosh 9y ago
Higher frequencies aren't even in most recordings, so we wouldn't have to re-record them for that reason.
And if they were (such as in 96 kHz hi-res audio), you could just run it through a low-pass filter to strip off the higher frequencies.
- exikyut 9y agoAh, good point. And... heh, using a filter to strip out the audio we used all that extra filesize to deliberately store. Haha. :)
- photojosh 9y agoMy webapp manages photos for photography competitions. People upload 30MB JPEGs that would be visually lossless at a tenth of that file size. And I keep the originals, but actually resize down to 300KB for every function within the software. Haven't had a single complaint about image quality... :)
- sjwright 9y agoEven if the engineer pressed the "192" button on their field recorder or DAW, chances are the instrument isn't going to be doing much interesting over 20kHz and/or the microphone isn't going to be particularly sensitive over 20kHz.