ralphpnj;635401 Wrote: > Let's avoid the topic of legality since that's a completely different, > though related, subject. The real question is whether or not any > recording, be it analog or digital, will benefit from sample rates > higher than 88.2 or 96 kHz. Case in point, during a recent discussion > on the Stereophile forum regarding the new Bryston BDP-1 "digital music > player", a $2000 brick with less functionality than the $300 SB Touch, > the BDP-1 was praised for it's ability to natively play 176.4 and 192 > kHz files, something the Touch can do natively. > > By the way, I do agree that anything above 88.2 or 96 kHz is simply > overkill and more of a "because it can" rather an issue of sound > quality. There are people out there who say that the improvement from 96 to 192
exceeds that from 44 to 96: It's the final step where veils are lifted, music takes on an analogue-like ease and flow etc. I am not really sure that there is any need to go over 44 kHz (take a look over on hydrogen audio if you dare). I'm not even sure that there exists any program material which has information recorded in the frequency range 96-192. There seem to be frequent exposees of the shortage of over 44kHz program material Why stop at 192kHz- why not 384 (which some DACs can handle). -- adamdea ------------------------------------------------------------------------ adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88056 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
