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

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

> "Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote:
> 
>> No:
>>
>> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4743184
>>
>> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742942
>>
>> Yes:
>>
>> http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=835&qID=4742938
>>
>> I am confused as to who is right and who is wrong. So I ask in this
>> group as well. Is a 44.1 kHz sample rate sufficient to cover the entire
>> human hearing range?
> 
> Well, when younger I could 'detect' albeit not hear in the conventional
> sense up to 23kHz so certainly 44.1kHz isn't an adequately high enough
> sampling rate for that.
> 
> Early digital audio suffered from crazy phase ****fts associated with the
> 'brick wall' anti-aliasing/anti-imaging filters too which some claimed
> were audibly defective.
> 
> For my money I'd have made CD at least 50KHz and 18 bit.
> 
> Graham

Long time ago, not with young people but older where tested.
They where tested and all where complete deaf over 14000 Hz.
So they played music and switched a filter on and off at 16000Hz,
ALL of them could tell the difference!

I myself have not yet done much listening tests between the SACD 
and CD, however once I attended a session where SACD was played
and I made a copy of the CD layer of an SACD.
I clued a new CD sticker on both the SACD and the CD quality 
copy. We played both and everybody could tell the difference.
( only I knew which was which )

Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one,
I am not joking.
As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think
it is interesting.
Some time ago :-) I have compared the CD with good vinyl,
no doubt the vinyl sounded better although the vinyl had the
additional vinyl problems.

Edmund