Themis wrote: > BTW, if you look back in CD history, 25 years ago, almost everybody was > saying (and proving it with various useless ABX tests) that it was > impossible to hear any difference above 44.1kHz. And now, the same > people are "serving" us 192kHz oversampling dacs saying (with the same > aplomb) that the sound is much better. Go figure.
Pretty easy. Early CDs (and digital mastering gear) had wicked low pass filters to eliminate anything over 22kHz. They screwed up too many things to list. With a 44.1kHz sample rate, there is nothing above 22.05 kHz. Period. No wonder ABX tests failed. Too many folks confuse this. Recording at 88.2 kHz means you don't need filters until 40kHz, and since there is nothing there, the filters can be nice first or second order networks. I've never hear any serious reasons to justify quad rate sampling. Bob Katz, a very serious mastering engineer, says that 18 bit samples at 55kHz would actually be enough, but with the way computers work, the next logical step is 24 bits @ 88.2 -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
