I don't have the link but testing was performed showing that humans could detect up to 500000hz and quite perceptibly to 200000hz.
perhaps it is smell.or some sort of synesia.
I don't care, but would agree that the 384khz upsampling dacs at least have a nice numberthat everything multiplies into neatly.
regarding bit rates, do electrical circuits generally resolve more than 21bits of info? Negatory.
Does 24bit 96khz sound better? Absolutely
and I am still happy playing back my CDs off a beaut transport, or soundfiles from a DAP,orheck my headphones from mywalkman, or even a minidisc player (yes I am aware of what it does to the sound file-but it has a great amp section and makes headphones sound good!).
actually tapes ifrecorded from good sources have a real lot to offer.
but lets argue FOR digital, presently, being good
if Microsoft hadn't killed off hdcd, I'd be very happy, asthe world would have gotten a cheap evolution of the CD.
so pundits go back to vinyl.....
edit....,oopps it was late, and I kinda just laugh at first line.
they were that sampling rates that people could detect variations at. Most people easily, under testing to 200, and extinction around 500khz sampling rate. Yes sound is listenable, sampling is listenable as having more samples and therefor a hopefully smoother sound, or closer to the origional, samples being the plotted points on the X axis, bit depth being the plotted points on the Y axis. part ofa DACs job to recreated those recorded points as accurately as possible. I find the improvement of even 4000 more per frame very noticable, and 48 multiplie into 192, doesn't create the artifacts that a 44khz sample will. So DVD rips when possible fill parts of my collection.
Edited by whitedragem - 2/27/14 at 4:05pm