Replies

The audio reproduction cannot be 100% faithfully reproduced to 20khz using a 44.1 kHz sampling rate.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you TexasGator for stating the truth. So many people, or should I say, uneducated folks, claim that because human ear cannot hear beyond 15 kHz realistically, that the Nyquist frequency is sufficient.

I sometimes get into vicious arguments with people who do not understand. It is indeed correct to say faithful reproduction of the audio waveform is the goal, and the more samples per second and the more bits per second yield a truer reproduction than simply 44kHz/16bits.

I have heard 96kHz/24bit, 192kHz/24bit and listening fatigue is indeed reduced at the these sample rates. Listening at 100 watts per channel cranked up is very much satisfying.

I even have a TASCAM DA-3000 master recorder that records in DSF format at sample rates of both 2.8 million per seconds and 5.6 million per second. I have recorded events in 5.6. Replay is incredibly and astoundingly clear and precise.

Also, your computer sound card must have excellent clock timing to reduce what is called “Jitter” for accurate detection of the digital bit stream for very exacting reproduction of the audio wave form.

I did a lot of research into sound cards. I made purchase of an ASUS Essence STX II sound card that is absolutely phenomenal. With such precise clock timing, there is little to no digital jitter, and on playback you hear things from favorite recordings that you never have heard before.

You can hear the room that surrounds the instruments being played, even from sources such as 44kHz/16bit and off of YT. Instruments such as cymbals are heard in a very real shimmer. ON one Black Sabbath cut, you can hear Ozzy burp. Never heard that before.

Enough of my blather. I get all worked up whenever anyone mentions Nyquist. Cheers.