mark francombe wrote:
Maybe it's common knowledge? http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
There's a little bit of handwaving in this where it mentions oversampling as being benificial to anti-alias filtering, so ultimately it's not rigorous.
I think it's reasonable to assume that 192kHz sampling has no advantage over 96kHz sampling...and I've heard it said that it's harder to make a stable clock for 192kHz, so that 96kHz (or lower?) can sound better. andy