Re: What's the use of a 192 kHz sample rate?

Randy,

> Greed. They think that the general public is dumb enough to buy into the
> lie that they really need such a system and would then spend lots of
money
> repurchasing what they already have.

LOL, you nailed it man. Same with music, where they hope you'll buy all
the
same titles again to play on your new unnecessary hardware.

Besides the obvious waste, as Radium pointed out, this nonsense has been
discredited fully:

Audio Critic summary of the AES hi-res fallacy article:
http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1

More from the authors themselves:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

Paul Lehrman commenting in Mix magazine:
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index1.html

Nobody can hear, or perceive, or be influenced by ultrasonic content, even
if they think they can. Here's my best explanation for why people
sometimes
re****t hearing differences even when none can possibly exist:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

> And even if one or two actually could hear beyond 20 kHz, they're the
> Robert Wadlow's of the audio world - should we start building houses
with
> 10-foot ceilings because 1 out of a billion will be over 8 feet tall?

More to the point, even if a few people really can just barely detect when

frequencies above 20 KHz are removed, who cares? Just because someone can 
perceive 21 KHz doesn't mean that music they hear must contain those 
frequencies to be satisfying.

--Ethan