Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash  Can't think of a good reason for an 88.2 sample rate at the listener's end. Perhaps somebody could propose one? |
I said
at least 88.2 because that's really the first common higher sample rate that people use to get higher quality. 48k is only only marginally different than the standard 44k. of course 96k or higher produces higher fidelity results too.
If your asking how: for one it's about the highest frequencies reproduced by the recording. 44k samlple rate captures up to 22k audio but 88.2 captures 44k audio. but the more important thing to me is It gets that digital aliasing out of the way. It's just the nature of digital recording that the freuencies at the top of the captured frequency range "alias" meaning the get all crunchy and must have a filter that smears them. When you use a higher sample rate gets all this (arguably) above the range of human hearing. 192k sampling rate drives this concept even further although is probably overkill. It does however allow for inaudible high frequencies that are felt more than heard and or affect lower ones. 192k is way debatable i believe but 88.2 and up is not as far as playback is concerned.
about the portability arguement: ipods and such could easily be made to play back 24 bit high sample rate files they would just hold less of them. Do you really need 4000 songs in your ipod all the time? how about 2000 low quality and 30 super high quality. you can always easily change them from the hard drive in your computer.