I, probably like most people here, can't hear a whit above 18k to begin with. So I'm not even going to try.
The preference for higher sample rates is not based on ultrasonic content, but on time resolution and aliasing when conversion goes wrong. All anti-alias filters are brick wall, anti-causal (i.e. pre-ring) which is unnatural. You can hear the difference between different sample rates, even when the tweeter doesn't go above 18kHz and/or your hearing stops at 17kHz.
The files I linked to in this thread have expired.
foo_abx 1.3.4 reportfoobar2000 v1.0.32010/07/10 03:21:48File A: C:\Users\Eunice\Desktop\Limehouse\limehouse_reference.wavFile B: C:\Users\Eunice\Desktop\Limehouse\limehouse_maximum_phase_100.wav03:21:48 : Test started.03:22:36 : 01/01 50.0%03:23:58 : 02/02 25.0%03:25:05 : 03/03 12.5%03:25:27 : 04/04 6.3%03:26:12 : 05/05 3.1%03:27:15 : 06/06 1.6%03:28:16 : 07/07 0.8%03:28:18 : Test finished. ---------- Total: 7/7 (0.8%)
Windows 7 64Pentium E6300, ASUS P5Q SE Plusfoobar2000 with Kernel StreamingASUS Xonar Essence STSennheiser HD-600
Independently from each other I thought that both versions sounded very good. What a marvelously engineered recording!
Unless it is on my end, the rapidshare download page won't load.
As discussed in another thread it seems that foo_abx has a flaw that makes it unsuitable for this sort of test: e.g. starting the playback where the cursor is in the spectrogram a few posts above constitutes a truncation which causes the 20kHz energy at that point to spread over the entire audible spectrum.
Yeah please post this here in a more detailed fashion.