R Parker wrote: > > I find it easy to hear the difference in cymbals. And > it is not a trivial difference. Then again, my > comparisons have all involved two differenct brands of > A/D convertors and I imagine they have a big impact. > Make sense? The best explanation of why 96 kHz is worth it that I found with a quick search is that: "If the aim is to digitize, work on, and recreate an analog sound, there is no doubt about the advantage of 24 bits/ 96 kHz. The object of the exercise being to retrieve the original curve in the end, you are more likely to do so if your source base contains as much information as possible. In this instance, a sound "captured" 96,000 times a second and encoded each time on a panel of 16.7 million values is better than one "captured" 44,100 times and encoded on a panel of 65,536 values." http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20021106/audigy2-03.html At first glance that seems fairly honest. It does also suggest that you wouldn't appreciate the benefits with a normal audio CD, so in that respect it seems pointless, but maybe I'm missing something. As for the Nyquist frequency I read some discussion that some people can hear up to 23 kHz, and that there may even be psychoacoustic effects up to 30 kHz, but I didn't try to find any references on this. As noted, the effect processing argument says that it's better to process everything internally at as high a resolution as possible (bit- and frequency-wise); does this by itself mean we should also record everything as high as possible, to get the best input to the effect functions? I have no idea. Cheers, Chris
