More audio tomfoolery

**John R Leddy** · #36 (**permalink**) July 14th 15, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Pearce[_3_]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 04:21:05 +0200, John R Leddy
wrote:

Vir Campestris;94176 Wrote:
...I'm not convinced why you need to playback at 96kHz. I suspect these
days my hearing ends at well under 15kHz - but surely yours doesn't hear
over 40kHz?
You're right, we don't need a 96kHz sampling rate for audio replay.
However, a high sampling rate isn't utilised to extend audible high
frequencies.

I know of a very useful web site that has visual graphs of sampling
rate converter quality. It uses a spectrogram to show the generation
of alias products, comparison of various frequency and impulse
responses, and enables comparison of quite a few different pieces of
software.

SRC Comparisons

d

Thank you for the link Don.
I've already converted the few 24-bit 192kHz albums I had to 24-bit 96kHz using Audacity 2.0.5.
I'm guessing, when converting from 192kHz to 96kHz, the same issues could be encountered as illustrated in the Help link SRC Comparisons - Help and Information where conversion was 96kHz to 44.1kHz.
Whilst it's too late for my 24-bit 192kHz albums, I now see where Jim's coming from when he suggests not to convert files, so thanks for that.
No doubt the article will lead me off on another web adventure in the near future, as I highlight text, right-click, and search DuckDuckGo.
Thanks,
John.