One thing recording at higher sample rates does is move the anti-alias filter further from the audible spectrum so that it doesn't impact the audio signal. If filters were perfect this might not be necessary, but they aren't.
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Henry Borchers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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