Patrick Dixon;270438 Wrote: > It's a good point. I guess it indicates that 48KHz, 96KHz and up audio > is more about how good or bad the pre-ADC filters in the recording > process are, rather than anything in the replay chain. After all, if > we can't even hear 17KHz, there's not much point in worrying about > reproducing 24KHz - we just need to stop it from aliasing with the > 'audible' range lower down. IMHO, this is mostly true, which is why 192 KHz is at the bottom of my wish list. Without going into specifics, let me say that there seem to be obvious, though often not really annoying, flaws in many of my 96 KHz and 192 KHz files, such as noise and peak overs. Seems to me that at 24-bit resolution, there is absolutely no reason either of these problems ever need to occur, and if they're going to the trouble to release a recording in 96 KHz or 192 KHz format, it seems to me they'd also go to the trouble to ensure the noise floor of their transfer equipment is below the analog tape noise of the master and there are no clipped peaks...
-- Timothy Stockman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy Stockman's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8867 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43269 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
