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

"Edmund" <nomail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4815dd90$0$1058$bf4948fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?

Phase ****ft applied equally to both channels usually has to be exceedingly

severe to be audible with most musical sources.

>>> 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 :-)

Their procedure was pretty good, and might be helpful to your own personal

investigations.

>> 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?

For one reason, because the SACD is a reissue, and the comparison is to a
CD 
that was mastered some time ago.

>>> 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.

That's one reason why one looks at what people have done before you.

>>> 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?

The old fa****oned way - with more bandwidth.

However, impulse response is a measurement, I thought you were interested
in 
listening tests?

>>> 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.

How do you know that what you perceived as better detail wasn't distortion

due to the LP?

> Not only my opinion but also everyone who "knew" the CD
> should sound better all agreed that that was not true.

The canonical anecdote starts out with "Even my wife in the kitchen said 
that it sounded better and she obviously didn't know what she was
listening 
to".