Very interesting and informative thread - thanks! Of the dozen our so relevant Wikipedia entries, I have found this one most useful in describing the tradeoffs of high sampling rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory) By thinking of the issue in terms of distortion - not "perfect recreation of the waveform" - we can quickly cut to real-world issues that (might) affect sound quality (e.g., slew rate, ZOH processing, etc.). I also find it useful to remember that errors in time (e.g., jitter) and errors in space/magnitude are very similar - and they are both distortions. Finally, consider taking the analysis to the limit. What if we could accurately play back a 128-bit recording sampled at 384Khz? What would that sound (and look) like? Hmmm. Analog! BTW, I have compared 16/44, 24/96, and 24/192 versions of the same piece on my high-resolution system (Berkeley Alpha DAC, Goldmund amps, etc.). I perceive a subtle improvement in the musicality and enjoyability of the piece as sample rate/bit depth increase. I believe that the differences are enough to pass a "blind test," but barely so - esp between 96 and 192. So I would conclude that 96k is a great and quite practical place to to jump off the "high res" quest. It is/was therefore a reasonable (smart?) design parameter for the TP. But who says that we audiophiles should be practical? <g> I'll chase that last 0.1% of SQ to the bitter end! -- teros ------------------------------------------------------------------------ teros's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18601 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57631 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
