On 11/04/2012, Tom Fine wrote:

> As for the idea that 192kHz is somehow inferior to 96k, that sounds
> like audiophoolery or outdated ideas based on older hardware. I would
> say it's unecessary overkill to sample at that high a rate, for the
> reasons you stated, but the playback results shouldn't sound inferior
> to 96k unless something is being done wrong by the equipment or the
> user.
The main advantage of high sampling rates is that it is easier for
software to distinguish clicks (impulses) from music.

The waveform of a muted trumpet (as played by Buck Clayton, for
instance) is very similar to a rapid sequence of clicks, so software
operating at 44.1 KHz cannot automatically tell the difference.

But the trumpet signal will fade out at the high frequency limit of the
recording equipment, while clicks will have higher frequency components.

Don Cox
[log in to unmask]