Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
My impression is that the more maths an audio
professional knows, the
more
sure the audio professional is that
higher sampling rates is a
bad thing. (unless you are recording sounds that is later going to be
downsampled a lot of course)
Perhaps its impossible for us
non-skilled-mathematicians to
understand properly why 96 kHz is a bad thing...
96kHz is not bad, 192kHZ IS bad. 96 pushes side effects of filters in
the A/D/A chain beyond out hearing. However, it's suspected that 192 is
not so good as there isn't sufficient time between samples to allow
components (e.g. caps) to function correctly. I think I've said this
before but read Dan Lavry's paper on the subject at
http://lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
Yes, Dan Lavry does makeand sell ADCs but this subject has been
discussed to death on a number of audio lists and forums frequented by
many eminent engineers. It is the concensus that 96kHZ is a Good Thing
(tm).
Greg
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com