44.1 vs 88.2 ABX report at AES Reply #75 – 2010-07-29 13:04:08 [quote author=AndyH-ha link=msg=715977 date=1280353355]Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2010-07-28 13:52:22Modern ADCs do have analog anti-aliasing filters, but they are relatively simple and operate at ultrasonic frequencies. The brick wall that is right up against the audio band is digital and therefore the overall performance can be very similar to what you get if you record at a higher sample rate and downsample in the digital domain. Note that there can be considerable techncal variation in the details of how the digital filtering is implemented, whether in the ADC or applied later on.The part about the final filtering being digital seems right, as far as I understand from reading, but based on my experiments, and those of a few others, the result of recording at 44.1 is never like that from recording at a 88.2 or 96 and downsampling with good software, as I pointed out earlier in this thread and in at least two others in HA (based on results using test tones, the only way to actually observe the final product). Do you have evidence that some soundcards really do better?[/quote]Virtually every audio interface is different from all the rest at some level of detail. So, the question is not whether they are different in any way but rather whether the differences are signficiant. These days most audio products are sold without complete or even representive specifications and technical tests are rare compared to the size of the marketplace. One of the ares in which I have observed possibly signficiant differences among audio interfaces is high frequency nonlinear distoriton. In general, audio interfaces aren't significantly nonlinear above their nomal passband.It has long been observed that in audio, "The wider you open the windows, the more dirt blows in".