HA!
What an excelent swerve from the old fox!
arimaka wrote - "I understand 100% what you are stating... But with 96khz you do capture a little more than 88.2khz.
From what I understood from Bob Catz... With old sample rate converters it was a problem because they weren't accurate enough. Now with newer sample rate converters you simply take a better picture with 96khz and then convert"
I gravitate towards this understanding. I too have heard / read on line (????) that modern SRC doesnt exibit these old "problems"..
I go for the best 'capture I can, and I can hear the benifit of 96k converted material that has been SRCed down to 44.1
That old 82.2 to 44.1 theory could be a digital myth nowadays....