There are reports of better sound with higher sampling rates. No doubt, the folks that like the "sound of a 192KHz" converter hear something. Clearly it has nothing to do with more bandwidth: the instruments make next to no 96KHz sound, the microphones don't respond to it, the speakers don't produce it, and the ear can not hear it. Moreover, we hear some reports about "some of that special quality captured by that 192KHz is retained when down sampling to 44.1KHz. Such reports neglect the fact that a 44.1KHz
sampled material can not contain above 22.05KHz of audio.
Some claim that that 192K is closer to the audio tape. That same tape that typically contains "only" 20KHz of audio gets converted to digital by a 192K AD, than stripped out of all possible content above 22KHz (down sample to CD). “If you hear it, there is something there” is an artistic statement. If you like it and want to use it, go ahead. But whatever you hear is not due to energy above audio. All is contained within the "lower band". It could be certain type of distortions that sound good to you.
Can it be that someone made a real good 192KHz device, and even after down sampling it has fewer distortions? Not likely.
The same converter architecture can be optimized for slower rates and with more time to process it should be more accurate (less distortions). The danger here is that people who hear something they like may associate better sound with faster sampling, wider bandwidth, and higher accuracy. This indirectly implies that lower rates
are inferior. Whatever one hears on a 192KHz system can be introduced into a 96KHz system, and much of it into lower sampling rates. That includes any distortions associated with 192KHz gear, much of which is due to insufficient time to achieve the level of accuracy of slower sampling.
Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.
Ведь и 40000 будет достаточно, нет?
