That's undoubtedly a Lavry rep and not Mr. Lavry, because jitter affects playback only; Bob Katz' book, Mastering Audio, explains why. Dwayne is correct about EQ; one of the reasons a Baxandall EQ works the way it does is because the shelving/corner frequencies are outside the human hearing range-but you can definitely hear it working. Even linear phase digital and look-ahead EQs exhibit this behavior to some extent.Dwayne Russell wrote:billg1 wrote: "A recording made accurately at 44.1 kHz will always sound better (or more "analog") than an inaccurate recording made at 96 or 192 kHz. In many cases this would be mostly due to jitter in the AD and DA conversion, as versus the sample rate. But even in these cases, the degradation is almost certain to be caused by more than just this one source of inaccuracy."
I know there are tons of people who disagree & maybe they know more than than Lavry, just thought it something to consider if you're planning on breaking the bank to get to 192.
Because I'm poor I like his viewpoint!
Having recorded in the digital world longer than most any one else in this business I have dealt with that idea for a long time. My first recordings made in 1889 were sampled at 100K. I disagree with the twice over theory. If you change or eliminate a high frequency it will effect the lower ones. Any one who rolls of highs and hears the sound change knows that. Therefore the same is true for frequencies above 40K. And because the curve is exponential if you take away frequencies like at 40K it will effect everything below it. So the higher you can sample the better. But 192 is way up there. I would only do it if I had the power and the money.
The Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) is important to audio capture but the filter you use to remove frequencies above the Nyquist is probably the most important component for optimal sound quality in a digital system, arguably far more important than the sample rate. I believe this is what the Lavry rep was trying to say.