Mteezy said:
It's not 96khz idiot, it's 96hz. Now who sounds dumb?...Yu
Err, no. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? CD sample rate is 44.1KHz, or 44,100 cycles per second. If you sampled at 44.1Hz, you would have little or information above 22.05Hz, which is just about the theoretical lower limit of human hearing. Sampling at 96Hz would give you little or no information above 48Hz, which would mean that the only info contained was sub-bass and a tiny way into the bass spectrum.
Do some reading on Shannon-Nyquist theorem. You can't beat the laws of physics, mate.
Just to clarify, there is some milage in upsampling for processing purposes only. Upsampling will never make something sound better than it did at the lower sample rate, as this sample rate determines how much information is in the signal. You can't add information without processing.
Any improvement you hear is entirely psychoacoustic, ie, not really there.
Have you ever been called JP22?
1005 said:
I'll just post a picture of the average human ear frequency chart so we can all wonder what you are talking about.
And some clarification on this chart, which is just a smidge misleading. The audibility and pain thresholds here are to do with level, not frequency. The human hearing spectrum runs, give or take, from about 25Hz to about 25KHz, using round numbers. In reality, it's a bit of a moving feast, since degradation occurs almost from day one. Frequent exposure to loud music or industrial noise will deplete the upper end of the spectrum quite rapidly. It is reckoned that the average adult only hears up to around 17KHz, unless your hearing is treated with extreme care in youth.