Yeah I have reservations too in this regard.
Actually last time I tested my hearing everything above 18k is dead, and I
believe that this is still quite good.
But a lot of myths were debunked in this paper nevertheless. And that by
one of the most respected ADC designers in the industry.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 10:21 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@email-addr-hidden-dsl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 06:54:25 +0000, Moshe Werner wrote:
> >In not everyone read it already:
> >
> http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
>
> I've got a few concerns regarding this paper, however, I like the
> following claim a lot "It is always unwise and potentially harmful to
> include signals that are not needed". Indeed, the noise flour of my RME
> card does increase rapidly, if I switch from 48 to 192 KHz, without
> gaining better quality for the hearable audio signal.
>
> "However, even after adding an extra 10 KHz, we are talking about
> bandwidth no higher than 40 KHz. That is why 88.2 or 96 KHz are
> preferred rates for audio quality." I stopped reading here.
>
> We had this already a few times on this list. What we need is 48 KHz,
> but some audio interfaces sound better at 96 KHz, regarding the used
> filters.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Jun 18 21:51:10 2018
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 18 2018 - 21:51:11 EEST