While I don't have the background to state that 96kHz will automatically sound better, I will go so far to state as that it has the potential to sound better.
FYI there are also technical arguments for the opposite, that it could potentially make things worse. I really don't care either way because my own experience tell me it is the quality of the recording that counts most. I have no shortage of CDs that sound better than SACDs within my own collection, and I definitely cannot tell the difference between my 96 and 196 kHz flac files either. If the higher sampling frequencies sound better to you that's great but then I think you can do even better by also focussing on acquiring high quality media digital files and discs etc.
In regards to ARC, I won't completely discount "Blind Faith" statement,
Just to be clear, when I mentioned blind faith, I referred to myself. I seem to have somehow developed enough blind faith in Audyssey, simply going by published "technical" information, the fact that it has been widely adopted by reputable companies including Marantz (even before D&M if I remember right), Onkyo, even NAD, and other circumstancial factors.
but the above link provided measurable characteristics that give it a little more credence as a viable room correction alternative to Audyssey.
Thanks for the link, I read that article before, and will read it again. Problem is that there aren't much of what I consider hard facts in it that proves its effectiveness. For example, there isn't much, if any, visuals about what it does in the time domain. As to being a viable RC alternative to Audyssey, I have no doubt that it could be. In fact I said it could well be superior, but we can only speculate or simply choose to have blind faith. I guess having spending so many years in science and engineering I am too used to having to prove things out. Anyone who has taken math at college level or higher will know what I mean.
It was not my intention to debate which is better,
It was never my intention to debate either. There is no need as we all are only expressing our opinions, not necessarily facts. I have seen no proof that shows one is better than the other, and what is better is probably not well defined to begin with.
and has some theoretical advantages to Audyssey.
To me you are stating your opinion but you could be right, again, it would be nice if there are proof. I read reviews and publications on both products and like anything else there are bound to be pros and cons for both. I am sure if you have read some of the reviews and technical publications on Audyssey and other REQ software.
In the same respect I have the Integra with XT32, but I won't automatically think it's better because it's founder has a PhD.
OMG, that wouldn't even cross my mind, of course not, it is not even logical thinking. I only mentioned the founder "also".........with a PhD, simply to mean: like others, e.g. Dr. Rich, author of the article you linked... so please don't get so super sensitive as though you need to defend your beloved ARC, as it is not under attacked at all. Having said that, I would take the 80.3 or AV7005 any day over any MRX AVR because of everything else, ARC/Audyssey is just one small factor for me as I use REQ for bass management only.
I have worked with both, and since my speaker setup was a little different, I can't state if it has a sonic impact. I can however definitely state that Anthem definitely gives you a better MIC then my Integra 80.3 or my short term AV7005 did.
Sure, that's your experience, others could well be different. Good thing there are so many choices.
At the end of the day I would prefer my room correction to pass the 96kHz signal exactly as it sent.
We all have our own preference, I probably prefer no down conversation as well, even though I am sure it won't sound any different to me either way. If the Anthem prepro can process at twice the frequency I just wonder what gives. Again, I really don't care, just curious as I doubt their prepro has more raw processing power than D&M's flagships models so it could have been a matter of give and take.
Back to the Original Topic:
My point is for an entry level AVR, the MX300 comes with a very comprehensive room correction included.
I agree, too bad I won't base my AVR/prepro choice on REQ only, but one of these days I may just bite the bullet and grab the baby MRX300 or its successor, just to play with the software.
