Samppling Rates (was: pixel porn)

[john manoogian <jmanoog@umich.edu>]

On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Tracy Hunker wrote:



> On Sun, 9 Jun 1996, kyle cassidy wrote:

> 

> > the sound quality is abysmal, i sampled at much too low a rate i think. does

> > 16 bit 22khz mono sound right? matt? anybody whose been doing this longer? i

> > did it at 8 bit 11 khz and it sounds like david arnett shouting into a

> > telephone while crouched under a table in a burning iraqi hotel. the video

> 

> I would think that 8bit at 22 khz would be fine for pxl-sound and take up

> less memory than 16bit at 22 khz. If 8 bit at 22 khz isn't good enough, go

> up in Khz. However, 8 @ 22khz seems to sound good enough on my amiga

> sampler for acceptable sound. It depends on what your ear is used to. You

> won't even want to record voice this way if you were cutting a CD, but

> most people would think it sounds fine.



yeah, 8bit is normally paired w/a 22kHz rate, as is 16bit w/44kHz. The 

pxl mike is not really a quality piece of hardware, but it _is_ pretty 

sensitive. If your computer has the disk space/memory, you might try 

sampling at your highest possible rate, say 16b/44kHz, then downsampling 

in your software program, probably to 8/22 or even 8/11 (supposedly good 

enough for speech and telephony). This trick has worked for me in other 

applications. Another caveat is that no two audio tracks are exactly 

alike, and depending on what/where you're recording, what sounds bad in 

one place may work in another.





john manoogian

maintainer of a pxl-2000 web site;

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmanoog/pxl/

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-



*------------------rebel i.f.s.-------------------*

| email: jmanoog@umich.edu      pgp: 9112BC51     |

| fingr: john.manoogian         tel: 313.332.4744 |

| website: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmanoog |

*------------------john manoogian-----------------*