6. Re: High Sample Rates

["Curt Olson" flipov411]

I wrote:

>> Bottom line... I think Steve, Dan and Rob are probably right that
>> better metadata is more important than higher sample rates.


John Hartog wrote:

> Hi Curt,
> I don't see the bottom line yet.
> How does metadata being important suggest that high sample rates are
> not? Maybe they are both important. These listening tests that we
> refer to are about marketing music only, and they only show we think
> we can hear no difference. There are many things that we cannot
> consciously describe that do indeed affect mind and body. And then
> there is species and ecosystem documentation - what about all that
> communication above 20k?

Good points, John. Perhaps I was a wee bit hasty. I gladly defer to
good wisdom.

Curt Olson