Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:

> < ...snip... >
>
> So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to 192 kHz, even 96
> kHz, or even 48 kHz? Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1
> kHz? Is it a marketing trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds
> by claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than a lower
> sample rate? It's starting to seem like it. I could be wrong though.

Can YOU hear the difference? If not, case closed, move on;
else continue your "research."


Later...
--