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

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:07:25 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "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.

Loss or phase ****fts/problems?
> 
>> 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.

I have seen such a re****t, strange,.... I like to hear or not hear it 
myself, I don't beleive in god either :-)
> 
> However, a SACD and a CD of the same performance can sound different due
> to different mastering.

I assumed the mastering was the same. Why would they use a different
mastering if they already had one for the SACD?
> 
>> 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.

I could not think of anything better I could do at the time.
 
> 
>> 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.

I will, do you have a specific URL with this article?
BTW check it yourself too, I see that you are comparing SACD
with a stretched 3X4 picture to make it look like 16 X9
I have seen the impulse of a SACD being the best available of
all used systems, how do they manage that in your opinion?

> 
>> 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"?

I don't say that the distortion sounded better, I said the overall sound 
was better, much more detail in the guitars and alike.
Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD should sound 
better all agreed that that was not true.

Edmund