View Single Post
Old 21st January 2020
Lives for gear

Originally Posted by Tom Barnaby View Post
I pretend that 44.1 kHz reproduction is not the most accurate that we can get.
I don't say it is flawed as far frequency reproduction is concerned. No audible frequency is missing and the sound will not be more crystal clear with a higher sample rate, but some nuances are not properly reproduced.

A lot of enginers or music consumers did the same experience when comparing with 96 or 192 kHz. The difference is more audible in the case of 192 kHz reproduction.
I'd like to point out that all of this is testable with analogue nulling of signals. it would likely take some test setup to be able to do this in real time — mostly signal time differences need to be precisely accounted for — but it would be possible, I think.

If one cannot accept the results of (analog) nulling one is denying the physical reality. Because ALL signals behaves like that. It's a characteristic of the physical world.

Time differences between 2 tested signals means they clearly do not null, but that's not within the complexity of the tested signals, but between them. This must be adjusted for so nulling can take place. At least reproduction would be relatively easy to test with two audio interfaces set to different sample rates.

@ Tom Barnaby , are you willing to test? So go do it, publish how you did it so others can criticize your test setup and reproduce the same test and also post your results. We await your scientific contributions to the audio community. Isn't that after all what you set out to do?