Re: Frequency response was Re: [linux-audio-user] Audiophile CD's

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: Frequency response was Re: [linux-audio-user] Audiophile CD's
From: Jason (hormonex_AT_yankthechain.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 23:59:00 EET


On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Tony Lambley wrote:

> > > What happens when you sample a 1Hz sine with 2 samples a second, and
> those
> > > samples happen to coincide with the zero crossover points?
> >
> > That's why it's necessary to sample at f > 2b -- information is lost
> > when there isn't a sample close enough to the peak/trough of the wave.
> > I'm not sure how much greater than 2b f has to be, but apparently others
> > have determined that 44.1khz or 48khz is high enough to reproduce
> > frequencies up to 20kHz.
>
> But doesn't that still leave a huge potential loss of information? Our ears
> can't tell the difference between a sine and square at 20k, so a 44.1k or
> 48k sample rate is sufficient for a human intended audience.

I really do beg to differ on this point. It absolutely is possible to hear
the difference in the upper hearing range, and while I don't know
precisely what the mechanism is, I've done the test on some very reliable
systems, and know it to be empirically true.

> Wouldn't fx algorithms be a difference case though?
>

Absolutely, and in this case bit depth is even more important, which is
why all the commercial software have been advertising 32bit processing for
years now.

-- 
YankTheChain.com - You can pretend we're not here. That's what I do.

,


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 23:48:58 EET