67.52.2.234
In Reply to: RE: Bad idea unless you can hear like a bat. posted by jmlpartners on June 06, 2009 at 13:10:36
jml, you must be aware that there are plenty of people that disagree with your theoretical take, right? I don't feel qualified enough to take a strong view, but there are plenty of knowledgable people who believe 192K sampling gives greater fidelity than 96K. It's certainly *widely* believed that 96K is audibly superior to 44.
Why?
- The Nyquist theory deals with continuous waveforms only - not stops and starts as occurs in real music. This point is critical.
- It is known that reproducing frequencies above 20 Khz has effects in the audio band, via intermodulation and by preserving transient fidelity. You are aware that super tweeters exist, right? (I don't use any myself and can deal with 3 dB down at 17 Khz...)
I will probably also record at 96K - though I'd like to try both.
And furthermore, my AN DAC at 16/44 is thus far the best digital I've ever heard - though I have no experience with hi-res PCM yet!
My point is just really that it is not nearly as cut & dried as you made it sound IMO.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]