07-01-11: Shadorne
Of course, in a studio the signals are manipulated - this creates the need for even greater dynamic range (24 bit or 144 dB) - not that they will necessarily have better S/N but they may want to boost some sounds by 20 dB or so and may apply digital filters (the accuracy of said filters improves significantly if you have more bits)
Excellent point!
06-29-11: Kijanki
... Nyquist-Shannon theorem requires infinite amount of terms (samples). Fixing it with sin(x)/x works poorly for short bursts around 1/2 of the sampling frequency. Sound of instruments producing continuous sound might be not affected (like flute) but anything with transients will sound wrong (piano, percussion instr. etc).
06-30-11: Kijanki
Closer you get to Nyquist frequency the more samples you need to properly reconstruct original waveform - not possible to do for short high frequency sounds.
07-01-11: Shadorne
Not so. The waveform is perfectly reconstructed. The mathematics are quite rigorous. The main issue with digital is
1. Anti alias filtering (higher frequencies must be eliminated prior to ADC or they can fold in)
2. Jitter
Both of the above add spurious non musical signals. Both can be managed.
In theory Kijanki is correct. An infinitely long series of samples is required for the mathematics to work out perfectly. The consequences of that will be most significant for spectral components that are transient and that approach the Nyquist frequency (i.e., half the sample rate).
The extent to which that may be audibly significant on most recordings is probably conjectural. The Wilson Audio cd I referenced, among many others, leads me to believe that in general it is not a major factor as a practical matter.
Shadorne is of course correct, IMO, in emphasizing the significance of anti-alias filtering and jitter.
Best regards,
-- Al