Add to this that there is more data for the various clean-up programs to
work with.

Steve Smolian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Whisler
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bit rates over 48 kHz

Henry:

Digital audio requires anti-aliasing filters that (in the case of 44.1 and
48 kHz sample rates) roll off in the 20,000+ Hz frequency range.  It can be
shown that these filters create rippling in the upper part of the audible
spectrum, as it is impossible to design a filter that simply cuts off at a
designated frequency without affecting  the area immediately below the
cutoff frequency.  Higher sample rates allow the anti-aliasing filters to
operate in a higher range and push the possible artifacts above the range of
human hearing.  Others on the list may offer additional advantages, but this
is one I have read a fair amount on.

Bruce Whisler

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Henry Borchers
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Bit rates over 48 kHz

I've been wondering what the real benefits of archiving music and spoken
word at 96 kHz and above.  From what I understand, Nyquist-Shannon 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