Re: Is 44.1 KHz sample-rate enough? Yes and No.

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:48093f79$0$3351$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <glucegen1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> message news:480678c5$0$7049$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 :
>
>
>>> So I ask in this group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample
>>> rate sufficient to cover the entire human hearing range?
>
>
>
>> Yes, because this has been investigated scientifically
>> many different ways, and removing all sound above 20 KHz
>> generally makes no difference with recordings of music,
>> dialog, and almost all sound effects.
>
>
> So, IOW, its a waste of time, money, energy to move to
> 192 kHz, even 96 kHz, or even 48 kHz?

Yes.

> Why doesn't the audio industry just stick to 44.1 kHz?

It pretty well has done exactly that, in terms of recordings that are 
actually sold.

>Is it a marketing
> trick they use -- i.e. play with customers' minds by
> claiming that a higher sample rate is always better than
> a lower sample rate?

They tried that with SACD and DVD-A and they both flopped in the 
marketplace, and failed scientific tests designed to see if they made an 
audible difference.

> It's starting to seem like it.

Hold that thought!