04-Feb-2021, 23:23
(04-Feb-2021, 23:02)ICUDoc Wrote: To me, struts, your question doesn't quite make sense.
There is no such thing as acoustic output above 24kHz (which is 24kS/s), inasmuch as humans can't hear that frequency, so it isn't really acoustic, let alone relevant anymore..
Do you perhaps mean "Can DOS2 Phantoms decode higher sample rates than 44.1 or 48kHz?"
At the end of the day, whether there is output at or above 24kHz is irrelevant- the question might be whether high-sample rate material results in better sound in the AUDIBLE spectrum (20-20 000Hz)?
And to that, I do not know the answer....
I’m going to nitpick a bit here, but not to be argumentative, so please bear with me:
1. There is such thing as acoustic output above 24kHz. You can measure it and it is there, just because it is ultrasonic and inaudible to us doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Dogs (and I believe bats) can hear it, but we can’t.
2. A 24kHz sine wave requires 48kS/s (thousand samples per second) to capture digitally. Nyquists theorem. Folks commonly use kHz to denote a sampling rate which is technically incorrect (or at least sloppy) as it becomes easy to confuse the acoustic frequency and the digital sampling rate needed to encode it, which is at least double.
3. All that said, I agree that it is what is audible (to us) that counts. But please let’s not start debating the validity of hi res audio and sampling rates above 44.1kS/s here. Do your research and your listening and choose what you want to believe. I for one am quite convinced that the presence of ultrasonic information changes our perception of the audible spectrum and I certainly think it sounds better. But to my original post, that isn’t really the point here.
So with all that said, while we disagree on some of the finer points we agree on the main one: it is what we can hear that matters!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
