Raimund wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing this is purely techno babble.
>
> Hi Max,
>
> I fully agree on that. We recently talked here about the misinformation t=
hat is circulating in the professional audio domain and this is a good exam=
ple for that (thanks very much to Eric for providing safe information on th=
e subject).
>
> The strange thing is that a hole industry is partly built on false assump=
tions. Why do they advertize mass-market recording equipment supporting sam=
ple rates of up to 96 or 192 kHz if nobody can hear anything above 18 kHz? =
In fact it is just a waste of resources...
I believe there is much research to the contrary, though it is not my area,=
so unfortunately references are not forthcoming.
I do remember the days before CD, reading the white papers as the tech depa=
rtments tried to bash out the standard. I recall, hopefully not falsely, th=
at Sony wanted a 100 KHz sampling rate, or thereabouts. Now, of course, we =
have 96 KHz as a hi-end alternative, but this was far from being deliverabl=
e at the time.
Still, Sony held out for a higher rate since psychoacoustic research had sh=
own that frequencies well above the so-called 20 KHz maximum affected one's=
impression of a sound. (I additionally recall they used solo piano as a te=
st case.)
Whereas Philips wanted 32KHz or lower, because their concern was to make so=
mething cheap and get it out the door. The compromise was 44.1 KHz, as we k=
now.
I could once hear a clear but subtle difference between the CD standard and=
higher sampling rates. But only in the studio with excellent source materi=
al. Thankfully/regrettably I am older now, and doubt I could do the same.
I also used to be able to hear bats. The sound was most uncomfortable to me=
. In fact, I would not characterise it as a "sound" as such. Maybe others w=
ith more experience know what I mean.
-- Robin Parmar
|