Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind
And first it seems maybe we should probably make a distinction and clarify the term "higher sample rates" because there is "higher" and then there is "much higher". And in fact Lavry makes this distinction also. Lavry proposes that 60k is the optimal sample rate and also proposes that below that is not optimal and you may not actually be getting all possible high end information available, at as flat a level as might be possible.
|
Fair enough point, and that is logical. However, when you combine the potential or ideal with the existing evidence.. nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been able to reliably pick out higher sample rates (above 48k) in a scientific double blind test.
http://www.mixonline.com/news/profil...ng-rate/365968
Quote:
|
And interestingly enough it is Lavry himself (see below) that is suggesting that there may in fact be a roll off of the high end data with 44.1 and thus it could well be that 44.1 does not have as much of the "airy" quality that the OP was referring to.
|
While you could be right.. and I'd trust Lavry over me... I still go back to the evidence of testing, because I'm more interested in the real world.
What would be an interesting exercise is to evaluate some of the early CD players vs. the current converter technology. Even at 44.1, I'd imagine we would hear the poorly designed filters and lack of oversampling... but the technology has gotten so good, I doubt it makes a difference today.
But I'm not one who says things are necessarily "settled" scientifically because things never really are. For now the evidence sure seems to be pointing to there being no difference (or a difference that somehow doesn't show up in double blind testing but shows up in other evaluations).
Anyway, for me, it's 44.1, but today's world means for many with newer computers and tons of CPU, I guess it might not be a big deal to hedge your bets with 88.2. (BTW my ears are old at 52, so YMMV.. maybe the young guys can pick it out).