On 29/08/2014, Eric Jacobs wrote:
> I m not sure that there is that much more information present at
> 192/24, and the algorithms from Cube-Tec perform equally well at
> 192/24 as they do at 96/24. It can be argued that there is more
> spatial information (two-channel or multi-channel) available at 192/24
> since the human brain can perceive very small L/R differences, but
> many listening systems and rooms are not up to the task of reproducing
> those spatial differences faithfully (i.e. due to room reflections).
> For the most part, I m just as happy with a 192/24 as a 96/24
> recording. The leap from 44/16 to 96/24 is huge, but the leap from
> 96/24 to 192/24 is more incremental. The chief limitation for many
> recordings is not the media or the format, but the recording itself.
The main advantage of higher sample rates is that they make it easier to
distinguish clicks from music.
So they could be very useful when digisizing from disc, but only if you
have a cartridge with at least some response up at those ultrasonic
[log in to unmask]