Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ  My objection isn't addressing «some of the principles you laid out in your original post», but rather the generalization deduced from Lavry's pretension that a sampling rate of 192 kHz will forever be too high a challenge for any future ADCs or DACs -- this from a perspective from 2004. Even if he still may have some following in this matter (such as you, among others), that doesn't make the hypothesis any more reliable or plausible.
.
|
It's not just me, many, many others have respect for one of the leading experts on the planet. I realise this counts for nothing here on head-fi though, where everyone appears to know more than those who do it for a living or indeed know more than the leading experts.
Of course, it's not just the ability to process the datastream but also the fact that there is nothing in those frequencies to capture. There has been arguments that audiophiles here on head-fi can apparently hear beyond 20kHz and are therefore different from normal human beings. Are we now going to have a discussion that head-fiers can now hear beyond 48kHz and need the frequency of digital audio to go up to 96kHz? If so you are wasting your time, no microphone in any recording studio goes anywhere near 96kHz, in fact very few of them go much beyond 20kHz, what about your speakers or cans, do they have a freq response of 96kHz? Anyone thinking there is anything that can either be captured or heard up there is completely fooling themselves.
Just to make it clear, there could (in theory) be some benefit to 96kFs/s under certain conditions. 192kFs/s is a complete waste of time, it's even a waste of time for recording, let alone for listening.
G
I have had a really hard weekend at work, this thread has put me to sleep. Just what I needed, thanks G!
