86.120.170.131
In Reply to: RE: Yes I can hear the difference posted by Botanico92007 on January 04, 2008 at 14:05:15
Thanks Botanico!While I don't question the fact that you chose the 24/192 track as the best sounding, I wonder how you could perceive differences between the 24/96 and 24/192 tracks.
The microphone used to record the performance was a DPA 4052 which has a quoted frequency range of 20Hz-20kHz ± 2dB. The 96k sampling frequency theoretically allows to be represented frequencies up to 48 kHz and the 192k up to 96 kHz. Do you think that this mic was able to send to the A/D converter anything beyond 48 kHz so that the 24/192 track could contain more info and sound better than the 24/96 track? Would these past 48 kHz frequencies be perceivable by the ear or be able to influence the range of frequencies that the human ear can perceive?
Again, I don't question the fact that you chose the 24/192 track as the best sounding which in the end may be a subjective impression; I just don't understand how could there be any differences perceivable between the 24/96 and 24/192 tracks.
I posted the same question on Dan Lavry's forum in the 96k thread but nobody answered yet (maybe they didn't had the DVD-A). If you read what Dan Lavry's has to say on the 192k sampling frequency you will see why I don't understand how could you have perceived any differences.
Edits: 01/04/08 01/04/08Follow Ups: