Wow, you are one stupid smart-ass. Rude, ignorant WUM. Convinced that 44.1khz is sufficient, when mixers and mastering engineers worldwide moved on from that dumb idea years ago.
Let me quote a passage from Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio, the art and the science" which, if you're going to take yourself seriously as a so called "hifi" connaisseur, you should buy it, read it, and calmly eat a massive portion of humble pie.
I apologize for any mistakes typing this out. So, page 249, chapter 20, Introduction (High sample rates: Is this where it's at?)
"I've been working with higher sample rates for several years. A great number of engineers think that higher sample rates sound better, pointing to their ability to reproduce extreme high frequencies. They cite the open, warm, spacious, extended sound of these recordings as evidence for this contention. But let's offer an alternative explanation. First, objective evidence shows that higher bandwidth cannot be the reason for superior reproduction since the additional frequencies that are recordable by higher sample rates are inaudible. How can our ears detect differences between 44.1kHz, 96kHz and even 192kHz sample rates since most of us can't hear above 15khz?
I believe the answer to the dilemma lies in the design of digital low-pass filters, used in oversampling A/D and D/A converters and sample rate converters (see figure on previous page (guess you'll have to buy the book ;-) )). Filters of lower quality or which are unoptimized, exhibit trade-offs such as low calculation resolution, higher distortion, ripple, ringing, and potential for aliasing. The artifacts of ripple are time-smearing of the audio, and possible short (millisecond) echoes. Aliasing is a form of distortion which occurs if the filter does not have enough attenuation in the stop band. (see side bar, guess you'll have to buy the book...). To avoid aliasing, we must use either a very steep filter, or a gentle filter with a higher cut-off frequency (which requires a higher sample rate). It is harder to engineer a steep filter with low ripple, but it is perfectly doable; this can be achieved with a large number of filter taps. For the same number of taps, a more gentle filter will have less ripple. Ripple in the passband should be less than 0.1dB."
And then he talks about oversampling etc etc, it's really very interesting. The book is 300 pages long, and the conclusion is, not only is analog more "hifi" than digital, if you ARE going to go digital, 44.1kHz is STUPIDLY inadequate, and that Sony and Phillips made a huge mistake when CD's were first conceived.
Now, I can assure you, that there are tests out there where you can hear an identical mix/master at 44.1kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, and whether I listen in my studio, or on my home hifi, the difference is relatively huge. If you choose to keep your head up your own ass, that's fine by me. All I'm interested in is "educating" any people who may still be open to debate, rather than closed-minded fools. It's OK to admit being wrong, and only fools never change their minds.
I suggest you learn to use you ears, and if that fails, listen to what serious mastering engineers have to say about the matter. Bob Katz is the man.
Edited by ploppy666 - 11/6/13 at 1:19pm