DCtoDaylight;229625 Wrote: > I'm surprised that this mis-conception continues to be voiced... > > The point of the higher sampling rate IS NOT any belief that humans can > hear beyond 20kHz, and I know for a fact that I can't even hear that > high (16.5kHz left, 17.2kHz right when last measured). The point is > that designing an anti-aliasing filter that is perfectly flat > (amplitude and phase) to 20kHz, and is 96 db down by 22 kHz is pretty > much impossible. As a result, many anti-aliasing filter designs have > measureable affects inside the audible passband (ie below 20 kHz). > Shifting the sampling rate up, moves the whole filter response problems > up as well, into an area where theres no chance of them being audible. > > Dave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem One does not need a perfect filter. I agree that analysis equipment may be able to distinguish signal differences, but I would bet my money that no listener can tell the difference between 96 vs 44 given a quality recording and a double-blind test. No free lunch so why add more cost than needed? -- earthbased ------------------------------------------------------------------------ earthbased's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=334 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38596 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
