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

"Edmund" <nomail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4815c591$0$16811$bf4948fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Long time ago, not with young people but older where
> tested. They where tested and all where complete deaf
> over 14000 Hz.

It is unlikely that there are many people who are completely deaf over 14 
KHz.  Hearing doesn't work that way - when there are high frequency
losses, 
they are progressive. Hearing loss is not complete, just attenuated.

> So they played music and switched a filter on and off at
> 16000Hz, ALL of them could tell the difference!

I know how to build a 16 KHz filter that just about anybody can detect - 
just use a gentle roll-off that also affects lower frequencies.  There are
a 
number of anecdotes where more the filter's specifics are given, and it 
turns out that the filter had audible loss at 10 KHz, due to the gentle 
slope.

> I myself have not yet done much listening tests between
> the SACD and CD,

There is a recent JAES paper (refereed, published by a professional 
organization with a world-wide reputation in audio) that says that if you 
take recordings in a so-called hi-rez audio format, and downsample them to

44 KHz, the results are no audible differences.

However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different due
to 
different mastering.

> 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 )

Single-blind evaluations have well-known failings, going back to "Clever 
Hans the talknig horse" circa 1800.

> Funny detail, we all picked the copy for the better one,
> I am not joking.

You may not be joking, but the listening evaluation was.

> As soon as I have tested more I will let you know, I think
> it is interesting.

If you want to see what a serious attempt at this sort of thing looks
like, 
check the AES web site.

> 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.

Begs the question, why did all that audible noise and distortion still 
"sound better"?