Focus on 24/192 Misguided?.....

04-20-12: Kijanki
Al, I wonder if 24/192 contains any ultrasonic frequency at all. Why would they leave it preparing hi-rez files? Where this ultrasonic frequency comes from? Again, notion that 192kHz sampling is harmful is a little farfetched.

Hi Kijanki,

What he is referring to is the ultrasonic output of the musical instruments themselves. Yes it would be at very low levels, and with a lot of instruments it would probably not be present to a significant extent at all. But his point, debatable though it may be, is that leaving it in can't do any good, and MIGHT do some harm, depending on the non-linearities that may be present in the playback system.

It would be left in the hi rez recording to avoid introducing a sharp cutoff filter into the signal path, which as you realize is one of the fundamental benefits of high rez.

Along the lines of my earlier comments, I'm skeptical and/or uncertain about a lot of his points, and how they would trade off in terms of significance against the presumable benefits of high rez. But I don't consider his arguments to be outlandish or unreasonable.

Best regards,
-- Al

It no his arguments, but the conclusions he draws that takes him over the top.

Much of his argument is premised upon amplifier circuits not being able to handle ultra sonic signals cleanly. Do they still make high end electronics that can't handle a 100kHz signal?

Al, My DAC and perhaps a lot of them cuts at 45kHz. AFAIK vinyl recordings also extend to about 50kHz. It is considered to be an advantage of vinyl.

Outlier - thanks for posting the liink. Very interesting and helpful article - no matter what side you come down on in the hi res debate. Thanks also to Bombaywalla for the "beginners guide" link. Am I missing something or isn't the convenience of computer-based audio going to apply whether or not music files are hi res?

I guess if you are happy with 16/44 then that is all that matters, but there is a whole lot more to be had.