Nyquist theorema tells there is no benefits but is based on the following assumptions: 1) sampled signal is made of perfect dirac pulses... practically they will look like square pulses resulting in a quite bad low pass sin x/x filtering that zeroes at 1/T where T is the width of the pulse (staircase sampled signal being the worst with 1/T equals to sample freq) 2) sampled pulse has a constant time period... but in reality time period is varying due to jitter 3) signal reconstruction is using perfect brickwall filters... but in practice it is very difficult to have steep filter slope without artifacts
In conclusion, there might be a (big?) gap between theory and practice. According to the 3 assumptions above, here are the (audible?) benefits of 96khz: 1) higher sample freq is reducing the low pass effect of square pulses, rejecting the resulting zeroes to higher freq 2) doubling the number of pulses adds redundancy to the signal that increases immunity to jitter 3) less steep brickwall filters are needed for signal reconstruction, reducing artifacts and improving linearity So hi res might technically improve the accuracy of reconstructed signal even if baseband signal does not contain any freq above 20 khz. The question remains however: are those benefits audible or not? I'd say it makes it at least more robust against less than optimal receiver implementation. -- evdplancke ------------------------------------------------------------------------ evdplancke's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=43147 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93483 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
