Hi Dan,
Yes, there are indeed such issues, at least in theory.
However, I believe that such AAF filter artifacts are limited to signal fre=
quencies that are close to the Nyquist frequency. So, as long as there is n=
o much sound energy lets say above 16 kHz, which is usually the case in typ=
ical (ambient) nature recordings, then this potential problem shouldn't be =
an issue at all. In addition to that, the sensitiviy of our ears at those h=
igh frequencies is quite poor (and it gets even worse when we become older)=
, which means that it is very unlikely that we can ever hear those artifact=
s. Bye the way, this concern could also be addressed (at least to some exte=
nt) by using 48 kHz instead of 44.1 kHz.
Though, I can understand why audiophiles and pro audio sales managers alway=
s try to find new arguments for 24/96 or 24/192 gear ;-)
Regards,
Raimund
Dan Cesonrocks wrote:
> I just wanted to report some crossover information (about the use higher =
sampling rates) from the worlds of audiophiles and pro audio recordists.
>
> I won't pretend to be able to explain all the details, but will say that =
each of these groups seem to think that the justification for use of higher=
sampling rates in recording has next to nothing to do with whether we can =
hear (explicitly or subconsciously) or record frequencies above 22.05 kHz (=
the Nyquist frequency). Rather they seem to believe that use of higher sam=
pling rates (in recording) results in better sound reproduction due to othe=
r factors, not the least of which are the filters employed to reduce digita=
l artifacts (and which introduce their own issues).
>
> Apologies if this is straying from 'nature recording'.
>
> clay
>
|