Paul is correct. SRC is math intensiove no matter the ratio. 88.2 to 44.1 is no simpler than 96 to 44.1.
Yes, you are out of date, sadly. RX does wonderful conversion. 96k down to 44.1 almost sounds better than recorded originally at 44.1 hard as that may seem.
Old folks donít need to use old methods! (Iím 68 so that is not a directed statement!)
But yes, avoiding conversion at all is good, but nearly impossible if you have multiple delivery destinations (24/96 archival, 16/44.1 CD, mp3 of any kind.)
Recording them separately means that if you do any processing (even simple level change) the diffreent files will not be the same. I do all processing at 24/96 then make the versions needed.
On Mar 4, 2018, at 10:34 PM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 3/4/2018 11:32 PM, Corey Bailey wrote:
>> Call me old fashioned, but I will not sample rate convert unless it is in even mathematical numbers (88.2K to 44.1K, 96K to 48K, etc.). On my website, I state that I digitize to 2 files simultaneously because I'm not a fan of sample rate conversion. Yes, I know that algorithms have improved over the years and those of you that maintain that you can't hear any difference will not change my opinion on this.
> My understanding is that sample conversion with even mathematical ratios (like 2:1) is just as destructive as with non-even ratios (like 96:44.1), and my (strictly-anecdotal, not-scientific) listening experience tells me the same thing, so I try to avoid *any* sample rate conversion.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.