Re: 16 bit 48 all we need?

[andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

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