Thats a bit rude isnt it?Especially after all the really good advice and useful replies people have offered?
Re-read the mail I sent.You can see its a thread I started and its a 'rhetorical question' in which I stated 'Another question maybe for another forum is' and was planning to do that!
Thats a bit rude isnt it?
I'm curious though as to why digital interfaces provide 96k (or even 192) if 44/48 is good enough?
Is it a manufacturing ploy to get people to buy new stuff?
I assumed that a 24 bit v 16 bit sample of a vinyl signal peak adjusted prior to the adc at the phonostage to give a -3db peak would actually contain more info or am i missing something.
At 60 KHz sampling rate, the contribution of AD and DA to any attenuation in the audible range is negligible. Although 60 KHz would be closer to the ideal; given the existing standards, 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz are closest to the optimal sample rate.
Sampling and playback at higher rates is (was?) useful in getting around limitations in analog anti-aliasing/imaging filters.I imagine this is no longer a problem?