This is not true. Sampling theory (Nyquist, Shannon) proves that the signal, up to 1/2 the sampling frequency, is perfectly reconstructed. There are very good reasons for recording at higher (2x & 4x) sampling rates, but this is not one of them.
3063 E Sterling Circle #3
Boulder, CO 80301
[log in to unmask]
On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Toby Seay wrote:
> Yes, 44.1KHz and 48KHz cover the entire hearing spectrum. However, it does
> not cover it well. Resolution gets worse as you go higher in the frequency
> spectrum. Therefore, really high frequencies only get sampled a few times.
> For instance, a 44.1KHz sample rate is only capable of sampling a 12KHz
> frequency 3.675 times a second. That leaves you with a very poor
> digitization at 12KHz. 96KHz does a much better job at providing a digital
> representation of higher frequencies.
> If you can, take a recording at 44.1KHz and high-pass filter it until you
> only have really high frequencies. You will clearly hear why lower sample
> rates are inadequate.
> Toby Seay
> Assistant Professor - Music Industry Program
> Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts & Design
> Drexel University Audio Archives
> Macalister 3016 - 215-895-5880
> On 8/17/12 10:37 AM, "Henry Borchers" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Iıve been wondering what the real benefits of archiving music and spoken
>> word at 96 kHz and above. From what I understand, NyquistShannon tells
>> us that the highest frequency we can hear on digital recording is half of
>> the sample rate, so 44.1 and 48 already covers the spectrum of our
>> hearing range.
>> I do know that high speed recordings at higher bit rate can be very
>> useful for when you are trying to transfer large volumes of long running
>> tape in a short time but I am curious what the rational and benefits are
>> for transfer real time at 96 kHz.
>> Henry Borchers
>> Broadcast Media Digitization and Curation Librarian
>> University of Maryland